Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J: 1. FACTS :- On July 3, 1987 the victim Rina Ghose went missing and thereafter found dead. The accused was the husband of the victim. It was alleged that there had been dispute over dowry. It was settled in a village compromise. Three days before the dowry could be given as per the village compromise, the victim was murdered. Police arrested the appellant who pleaded not guilty and opted to be tried. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura tried the above appellant along with the other accused. The appellant was held guilty of the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code when other accused were acquitted of the charges. Hence, this appeal by the appellant. 2. EVIDENCE :- PW-1 (Manmatha Ghosh) :- The witness was the unfortunate father of the victim. According to him, Rina was married to Prasanta, the appellant above named. Manmatha could not give dowry and utensils giving rise to a dispute. In a village compromise (Salish) Manmatha was asked to give dowry and utensils within a certain date. Before three days of the fixed date when Rina was about to go to her in3 laws place along with dowry utensils and ornaments, she died an unnatural death. Initially Rina was found missing. Gita Ghose and Mira Ghose wife and daughter in-law of the witness respectively reported that Prasanta and Madan took Rina from their house after dusk. On a search being made in the locality, Rina could not be found. Other villagers Satyanarayan, Mathur, pintu, Durga searched her. Shyamal went to the accused persons when accused Balai informed that Rina was not in their house, so were Prasanta and Madan. Subsequently, Sukumar informed that Prasanta and Madan were found going towards Kotulpur by cycle. The villagers went to Kotulpur. They also went to Jalitha in the house of Badal Panja, brother in-law of Prasanta where they found Prasanta. On being pressed by Satyanarayan, Prasanta confessed that he had throttled her to death and threw her body in jute field with the help of Madan. Prasanta also told them that Madan had poured poison in her mouth and Pintu had also been with them. Prasanta led the villagers to the field where Rina was found lying dead. The witness lodged the FIR. Prasanta also told them that Madan had poured poison in her mouth and Pintu had also been with them. Prasanta led the villagers to the field where Rina was found lying dead. The witness lodged the FIR. He made the complaint being written by Swapan Ghose who wrote it as per his dictation. He put his signature after the complaint had been explained to him. PW-2 (Shyamal Ghose) :- Shyamal almost corroborated his father, Manmatha. He also supported the extra judicial confession of Prasanta so told by Manmatha in his deposition. In addition, Shyamal stated that Prasanta used to come to their house time and again. They had cordial relationship. PW-3 (Rambilash Law) :- Rambilash was a villager. He also corroborated PW-1 and 2. He also searched Rina along with others. He did not go to Jalitha. Prasanta was brought by the other villagers when he had confessed before them that he had committed murder of Rina by throttling her to death and throwing her body in the jute field. PW-4 (Siddheswar Kotal) : The witness was also a villager. He corroborated PW-1, 2 and 3. PW-5 (Sukumar Mahapatra) :- The witness was also a co-villager. He along with Manik went to the house of Prasanta when his father told them that Prasanta had gone to his brother inlaw’s place at Jalitha. The witness along with others went to Jalitha and brought Prasanta. Prasanta had confessed having throttled her to death and throwing her dead body in the field. PW-6 (Sk. Shyamsed) :- The witness being a co-villager corroborated other witnesses with regard to the Prasanta’s presence at Jalitha in the house of Badal. PW-7 (Manik Roy) :- Manik was a member of the Panchayat. According to him, Rina even after marriage used to stay in her father’s house. In a village compromise it was settled at the Panchayat that Rina would go to the house of her husband on the day of Ultorath after payment of dowry and utensils. On the fateful day Rina was found missing. Witnesses along with others searched Rina and Prasanta. Sukumar told them that he had seen Prasanta and Madan going to Kotulpur by cycle. Shyamsed, Sukumar, Shyamal and some other villagers brought Prasanta from Jalitha when Prasanta confessed his guilt after being assaulted by the villagers. At this stage the witness was declared hostile. Witnesses along with others searched Rina and Prasanta. Sukumar told them that he had seen Prasanta and Madan going to Kotulpur by cycle. Shyamsed, Sukumar, Shyamal and some other villagers brought Prasanta from Jalitha when Prasanta confessed his guilt after being assaulted by the villagers. At this stage the witness was declared hostile. PW- 8 (Smt. Mira Ghose) :- The witness was the sister in-law of Rina (Boudi). On the fateful day Gita was combing the heir of Rina and Mira, Prasanta called Rina by indication from “front door”. Rina responded the call. Mira peeped through the door and found that both of them were talking behind the cow-shed and Madan was standing there. In cross-examination Mira stated that both Prasanta and Rina were accustomed to talk to each other in such a fashion. PW-9 (Satyanarayan Pal) :- Satyanarayan found Prasanta behind the cowshed. He was talking to Rina, accused Madan was standing there. PW-10 (Anaboidya Sen) :- The witness was the Autopsy Surgeon. According to him, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Viscera was preserved for chemical examination in order to detect whether there was any poison or not. PW-11 (Sukumar Pratra) ;- The witness was a constable who identified the dead body to the Autopsy Surgeon. PW- 12 (Anilbaran Mukherjee) : The witness was a sub-inspector of Police attached to Kotulpur Police Station. On February 20, 1988 he was entrusted to investigate into the case. He consulted the case diary and other papers and submitted charge sheet. PW- 13 (Gangaprasad Shil) :- The witness was the sub-inspector of Police posted at Kotulpur Police Station. On July 4, 1987 when the incident occurred he received the information and made a G.D. Entry and proceeded to the spot with Force. He found a large gathering in front of Panchayat Office. Manmatha identified the deadbody of Rina. The Inspector held the inquest. He also seized the bottle containing poison found by the side of the dead body. He prepared the rough sketch map and seized some earth from the place of occurrence. He prepared a seizure list. He examined Manik Roy, the Panchayat member. Manik stated to him that Prasanta had confessed that he along with Madan and Pintu had throttled Rina to death and thrown her dead body to “San khet”. 3. He prepared the rough sketch map and seized some earth from the place of occurrence. He prepared a seizure list. He examined Manik Roy, the Panchayat member. Manik stated to him that Prasanta had confessed that he along with Madan and Pintu had throttled Rina to death and thrown her dead body to “San khet”. 3. EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 :- The learned Judge put each and every material evidence to Prasanta. Prasanta denied having any dispute about dowry, however admitted the village compromise having held on the issue of taking Rina to their place. On another query Prasanta stated that he went to his brother in-law’s house (Kajal) on that day at about 7.08 p.m. when five/six persons namely Samshed, Sukumar, Niru Ghosh, Kalipada, Siddeswar and others asked him to go home. He was afraid thinking that something might have happened to his parents and accompanied them. But they confined him near Panchayat Office and assaulted him. He did not make any confession. 4. JUDGMENT :- The learned Additional Session Judge considered each and every piece of evidence. The learned Judge ultimately held Prasanta guilty of the offence and acquitted others from the charges. Hence, this appeal by Prasanta. 5. CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT :- Mr. Ashok Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended as follows :- (i) The statement of Mira was not believable as the actual topography of the house and the location of the front door or the cow-shed did not suggest so. (ii) The statement of Sukumar that Prasanta had been found going in cycle with Madan, did not find corroboration from any other witness. (iii) When the Court did not believe Sukumar and other witnesses and gave acquittal to all other accused Prasanta being similarly circumstanced was entitled to the same relief. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Biswas drew our attention to the evidence particularly pages 14, 16, 22, 31 and 52 of the Paper Book to show that there had been anomaly in the statements. Mr. Biswas further contended that Rina was found missing after dusk. The villagers made a search. Prasanta was brought from his brother in-law’s house. Even after taking all those events chronologically a gap of two/three hours had not been successfully explained by the prosecution that would leave room for doubt in the mind of the Court. To support his contentions Mr. Biswas further contended that Rina was found missing after dusk. The villagers made a search. Prasanta was brought from his brother in-law’s house. Even after taking all those events chronologically a gap of two/three hours had not been successfully explained by the prosecution that would leave room for doubt in the mind of the Court. To support his contentions Mr. Biswas cited the following decisions :- (i) All India Reporter 1984 Supreme Court Page-1622 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda –VS-State of Maharashtra) (ii) 1991 Criminal Law Journal Page-1809 (Jaharlal Das –VS- State of Orissa) (iii) All India Reporter 1993 Supreme Court Page-110 (Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni –VS-State of Maharashtra) (iv) 1995 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Calcuttta) Page-88 (Ashok Bairagya –VS- The State of West Bengal) (v) All India Reporter 2002 Supreme Court Page-3164 (Bodh Raj alias Bodha and Others –VS- State of Jammu and Kashmir) 6. CONTENTION OF THE PROSECUTION : Ms. Minoti Gomes, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution contended as follows : (i) The couple had a pre-marital relationship. Rina was on the family way. She gave birth to a child three days after her marriage. She was however not taken to the marital home as her father could not meet the demand. There was a village compromise where it was settled that Manmatho would arrange for appropriate dowry, ornaments and utensils and would send Rina to her marital home. Just three days before she was about to go to her marital home she was found dead. (ii) As per statement of Mira, victim was last seen in the company of the accused. Hence, accused owed a responsibility to explain how he had parted with the company of the victim. (iii) No suggestion was given to Mira disputing her statement on the couple being last seen together behind the cow-shed. (iv) The extra judicial confession made by Prasanta in front of the villagers, even if not taken into account, would certainly be admissible to the extent of recovery of the dead body. Elaborating her argument, Ms. Gomes contended that the couple had cordial relationship. They were close to each other. The intimacy resulted in pregnancy of the victim who gave birth to a child just three days after her marriage. The villagers consistently deposed that there had been a village compromise on the issue of dowry. The victim died within seven years of her marriage. Gomes contended that the couple had cordial relationship. They were close to each other. The intimacy resulted in pregnancy of the victim who gave birth to a child just three days after her marriage. The villagers consistently deposed that there had been a village compromise on the issue of dowry. The victim died within seven years of her marriage. She was last seen together with her husband. The victim was found missing soon after she had been seen in the company of the accused. The accused was also found missing. When he was brought from another village from the house of his brother in-law the accused led the searching team to the “Son khet” where the dead body was recovered. Taking a sum total of the evidence the Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the accused was guilty of the offence. 7. OUR VIEW:- The couple had intimate relationship resulting in pregnancy of the girl. The villagers arranged for marriage. The father of the girl however could not be able to satisfy the dowry demand. He got some time in a village compromise to meet the demand. Before he could meet the demand the girl was found dead after having last seen alive in the company of the accused being her husband. Lot was said by Mr. Biswas on the issue of disbelieving Mira by the learned Judge. We have examined the judgment. According to the learned Judge, Mira casually named Madan. However, the other part of the evidence of Mira so far it relates to Prasanata, was truthful and the learned Judge relied on the same as we find from page- 70 of the Paper Book. During his examination, Prasanata also admitted the village compromise. He also admitted about his absence in the village and his presence at Jalitha. The learned Judge declined to accept that his absence was just a coincidence and in our view, very rightly. The learned Judge was of the view that the extra judicial confession was made in presence of host of villagers. More over, such confession led to recovery of the dead body and found corroboration from the other witnesses which was cogent and firm. The decision in the case of Ashok Bairagya (Supra) was cited by Mr. The learned Judge was of the view that the extra judicial confession was made in presence of host of villagers. More over, such confession led to recovery of the dead body and found corroboration from the other witnesses which was cogent and firm. The decision in the case of Ashok Bairagya (Supra) was cited by Mr. Biswas to support his contention that in absence of each and every circumstance proved as against the accused must be put to him during cross-examination under Section 313 and without putting the same before him such circumstance could not be taken into consideration. We are unable to find out how this proposition of law would be of any help to us in this case. Here we find that each and every material evidence that came out during trial was put to the accused. He understood the same and replied accordingly, as discussed above. On the issue of last seen theory, Mr. Biswas relied on the decision in the case of Jaharlal Das (Supra). Here the Apex Court considering the evidence came to a conclusion that the victim had been found in the company of the accused, was not proved behind doubt. More over the recovery at the instance of the accused was also not proved. The medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution. Considering such aspect the Apex Court signed the judgment of acquittal. In our view, this case would not help the appellant in any way. Here all the villagers consistently deposed that Prasanta had confessed before them. They also deposed to the extent that Prasanta led them to the “son khet” where the dead boy was found. From the statement of the Investigating Officer we find corroboration when he says that Manik Roy, the Panchyat member stated in the same way. The decision in the case of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni (Supra) was cited to support the contention that circumstantial evidence did not lead to irresistible conclusion that the accused had been responsible for the crime. On perusal of the said decision we find that in the said decision deceased was found alive in the company of the accused and his dead body was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused. On perusal of the said decision we find that in the said decision deceased was found alive in the company of the accused and his dead body was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused. The Apex Court also considered the other evidence that the place of recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused and the recovery of watch belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused was also found unreliable. Taking a sum total of the evidence the Apex Court observed that accused could not be convicted merely on circumstance of last seen and that the dead body found near his house. The facts involved in the case in hand do not have any resemblance. Hence we are unable to apply the ratio. The decision in the case of Bodh Raj alias Bodha (Supra) was cited on the issue of admissibility of the evidence relating to recovery. The Apex Court was of the view that information relating to recovery was only admissible. However it should not be so truncated as to make it insensible. These facts also do not have resemblance in our case. Lastly Mr. Biswas relied on the decision in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra). It was considered to be the Bible in criminal jurisprudence, particularly on the issue of circumstantial evidence. We are of the view that this decision would not only help us to decide the present case but also guide us to decide other criminal appeals particularly when there had been lack of sufficient ocular evidence. The guidelines so formulated by the Apex Court in this case as spelt out in paragraph 152 are quoted below:- (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” The learned Judge held Prasanta guilty of the offence and sentenced him for life coupled with a fine of rupees two thousand and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more. We do not find any scope of interference. 8. RESULT :- The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. DIRECTION :- The appellant is on bail. His bail-bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court below for serving out the sentence. In default, the Court below is directed to take appropriate steps for arrest of the appellant for serving the sentence. A copy of the judgment and order along with Lower Court Records be sent down at once. Urgent xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.