JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.1999 passed by Sri A.K. Senapati, learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 40 of 1995 by which the Appellant has been convicted u/s 302 of I.PC. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that one Mangal Soren (P.W.5), husband of Sapani (herein after called the deceased) used to live with his family in the house of the Appellant, his agnatic brother on rent. The Appellant suspected the death of his four children to be the outcome of witchcraft practiced by the deceased. Therefore, he asked P.W.5 and his family to leave his house and stay elsewhere. Accordingly P.W.5 constructed a hut in Belda Hillock and shifted there. In the process of shifting, when on 11.12.1994 at about 10 A.M. the deceased had come alone to take some household articles, the Appellant, who was in hiding, attacked her with a dowli (a sharp cutting weapon) on which the deceased raised hulla. Hearing the hulla of the deceased (P.W.5) rushed to the spot and from a distance saw the accused dragging away the deceased from the spot. P.W.5 did not dare to approach the Appellant and went to seek help. Later he found the dead body of the deceased to be lying at a little distance from the spot with the head missing. On the other hand, the Appellant went to Bamebari Out Post where he told to P.W.8 that he had committed murder of a woman. P.W.8 made a Station Diary entry and thereafter the Appellant took the A.S.I., Police Staff and witnesses to the spot where he had committed the murder of the deceased, where the dead body was lying without head and also to the spot where he had concealed the severed head of the deceased. P.W.5, who was called to the spot identified the dead body and the head to be of the deceased. P.W.8 sent the written report to Binesh Chandra Behera, P.W.9, O.I.C. of Joda police Station who treated the same as F.I.R. and registered a case u/s 302 I.P.C. He came to the spot and took up the investigation from P.W.8. P.W.8 had earlier seized the Dowli, M.O.I vide seizure list Ext.6. P.W.8 sent the written report to Binesh Chandra Behera, P.W.9, O.I.C. of Joda police Station who treated the same as F.I.R. and registered a case u/s 302 I.P.C. He came to the spot and took up the investigation from P.W.8. P.W.8 had earlier seized the Dowli, M.O.I vide seizure list Ext.6. During the investigation, P.W.9 held inquest over the dead body, sent it for post-mortem examination and seized different articles including wearing apparels of the Appellant and the deceased. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. 3. The accused faced trial being indicated u/s 302 I.P.C. During trial, the plea of the accused was one of complete denial. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined a total of 10 witnesses inclusive of the witnesses named above. No defence was adduced. On scanning of the evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid occasioning the present appeal. 4. During argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.5, husband of the deceased, is not trustworthy in view of the material contradictions and that the learned trial court should not have believed the prosecution case and should have given the benefit of doubt to the Appellant. He specifically argued that since the accused was not arrested when he allegedly led the police party and gave recovery of the head of the deceased, his statement is not admissible u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, strenuously supported the judgment of conviction. 5. The post-mortem report clearly shows that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and as a result of blows given by a sharp cutting weapon. This is also not challenged by the defense. Therefore, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased remains established. It is now necessary to see as to how far the prosecution has been able to connect the Appellant with the present offence. 6. The sole eye witness to the occurrence is P.W.5-Mangal Soren, who is none other than the husband of the deceased, it is argued that he being related to the deceased, is an interested witness. It is now necessary to see as to how far the prosecution has been able to connect the Appellant with the present offence. 6. The sole eye witness to the occurrence is P.W.5-Mangal Soren, who is none other than the husband of the deceased, it is argued that he being related to the deceased, is an interested witness. The evidence of a close relative of the deceased stands in a far better footing then any other evidence since he will be the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person at the cost of exonerating the real culprit. This is more so when there is a single accused. No enmity has been proved against this witness nor has it been proved as to why this witness will be interested to see the accused convicted. The contradiction pointed out by the defense counsel is to the effect that this witness did not see the actual blows being inflicted on the deceased by a dowli by the accused. However, his statement that at the relevant time the accused was armed with a dowli and was dragging the deceased and that hearing hullah of the deceased, P.W.5 arrived at the spot and saw that part of the occurrence, has not been effectively challenged. It is also not challenged in the cross-examination that when P.W.5 returned to the spot soon after he found the beheaded dead body of the deceased lying at a little distance. The part of the occurrence as was seen by P.W.5 is virtually clinching and leaves no room for doubt that it was the accused, who committed the murder of the deceased. 7. It is argued on behalf of the defense that at the time the accused made the alleged confession, led the police officer (P.W.8) and the witnesses to the spot of concealment and gave recovery of the beheaded dead body of the deceased, he was not in custody and hence the fact of discovery consequent to leading of the police is not admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. This point needs examination Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. This point needs examination Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27, which is in the nature of an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and is proviso to Section 26 of the Evidence Act, reads as follows: 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 8. By virtue of this section, so much information supplied by the accused, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved, whether it amounts to a confession or not. The fact must have been discovered in consequent of the information supplied by the accused. In such a case, whether the information supplied by the accused amounts to a confession or not becomes immaterial when other ingredients are proved. The embargo on the admissibility of the statement of the accused, as provided in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act will not apply to a case covered u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. However, in a case to be covered u/s 27 of the Evidence Act the question must arise as to whether the person, from whom such information is received, was an accused of any offence and was in the custody of a police officer at the relevant time. 9. The question when the accused will be held to be in custody of the police has been thoroughly discussed and has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya. In the said case it has been held that the expression "accused of any offence" is descriptive of the person against whom evidence relating to information alleged to be given by him is made provable by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Deoman Upadhyaya. In the said case it has been held that the expression "accused of any offence" is descriptive of the person against whom evidence relating to information alleged to be given by him is made provable by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It does not predicate a formal accusation against him at the time of making the statement sought to be proved, as a condition of its applicability. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in. the case of Paramhansa Jadab and Anr. v. The State, reported in AIR 1964 Orissa 144, wherein it has been held that the police custody for the purpose of Section 26 does not commence only when the accused is formally arrested but would commence from the moment when his movements are restricted and he is kept in some sort of direct or indirect police surveillance. As soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer, he is, in the absence of any clear and unmistakable evidence to the contrary, no longer at liberty and is therefore in "custody" within the meaning of Sections 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. Even indirect control over the movements of suspects by the police would amount to 'police custody' within the meaning of Section 26. 10. In the present case the accused voluntarily went to the out-post with the murder weapon which was stained with blood, confessed his guilt and took the police party to the spot where he gave recovery of the severed head of the deceased. Once he surrendered before the police, he was never thereafter let out of the police custody. Therefore it can be safely held that he was in custody when he supplied the information and led to discovery of the incriminating articles i.e. the severed head of the deceased. That apart, the conduct of the accused in coming to the police station with murder weapon and the leading the police to the discovery of the severing head of the deceased is admissible u/s 8 of the Evidence Act. 11. That apart, the conduct of the accused in coming to the police station with murder weapon and the leading the police to the discovery of the severing head of the deceased is admissible u/s 8 of the Evidence Act. 11. On the discussions made above, we find that there is no escape from the conclusion that it was the Appellant, who committed the murder of the deceased and that the prosecution has been able to prove its case u/s 302 I.P.C. against the Appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed