JUDGMENT T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7/1/2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 286/2003 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his son Chaitram convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of ` 1000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence sufficient for conviction of the appellant, Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on faithful night of 14/6/2003 at about 12.30 (0.30) appellant along with his son Chaitram and another child were present in his house at village Kusumi. Present appellant assaulted his son Chaitram and caused repeated injuries over his body and caused instantaneously death of Chaitram. Appellant bolted the room from out side the house where other children were also present. Appellant went to the Police Station Palari with blood stained axe, his body and cloths were stained with blood. Police Officers have directed one Police Officer to find out the truth who went to the village thereafter some villagers went to the house of appellant and saw the dead body of Chaitram inside the room. They went to Police Station where appellant was present they called the appellant and inquired then he made extrajudicial confession that he has committed the murder of his son Chaitram same was recorded vide Ex. P-9 thereafter PW3 Madandas lodged First Information Report vide Ex. P-5. Marg was recorded vide Ex. P-6. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P- 13, inquest over the dead body of deceased Chaitram was prepared vide Ex. P-14. Blood stained axe and blood stained towel were seized from the appellant vide Ex. P- 15. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center Palari vide Ex. P-2A. PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-2 and found following injuries: (i) One incised wound of 4 + " x 3 +" over neck on the ground of repeated injury. Injury was appearing as lacerated wound. P- 15. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center Palari vide Ex. P-2A. PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-2 and found following injuries: (i) One incised wound of 4 + " x 3 +" over neck on the ground of repeated injury. Injury was appearing as lacerated wound. Tracia and internal part of neck was found cut. (ii) Incised wound of 2" x 1" x 1 + '' over left cheek. Jaw was also found cut. (iii) Incised wound of 2" x 1" x 1 +" over chin. Bone was also found cut. (iv) Incised wound of 2 x 1" x 1 +" over left ear. Jaw was also found cut. (v) Incised wound of 2" x 1" x 1 +" over back of the neck. (vi) Incised wound of 2" x 1" x 1 +" over left wrist. Ulna bone was also found fracture. (vii) Incised wound of 2" x 1" x 1 +" over right palm. (viii) Incised wound of 1 +" x + c.m. x + c.m. near left eye. (ix) One incised wound of 1" x +" x +" over forehead. Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature. 4. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-1. Appellant was sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-3A who was examined by PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala vide Ex. P-3 and blood was found over the body of appellant, blood was taken out with the help of cotton and was sealed. Axe was also examined by doctor vide Ex. P-4 same was stained with blood. Blood stained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex. P-7. Blood stained shirt, bed-sheet and other cloths of deceased and cotton stained with blood found over the body of appellant were sealed vide Ex. P-16. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination Vide Ex. P-18. Presence of blood was confirmed vide Ex. P-22 on axe, towel and cotton by the Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur from where Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar received the case on transfer for trial. 6. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur from where Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar received the case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocency and false implication is claimed. He has taken specific defence that in the intervening night of 13-14/6/2007 his son Chaitram was killed by some person, he went to police station for lodging report but he was detained by police and was falsely implicated. 7. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant V.P. Gupta and learned G.A. for the State/respondent Arun Sao are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of persons before whom present appellant made extrajudicial confession vide Ex. P-9 but as per evidence of PW10 Investigating Officer C.D. Lahre he was present at the time of recording such extrajudicial confession Ex. P-9 and same was recorded in the police station premises therefore, same is hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act except aforesaid evidence prosecution has not collected any evidence against the appellant therefore conviction and sentence of the appellant is not sustainable under the law. 10. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent opposed the appeal and submits that in the present case as per evidence of the prosecution accused himself had gone to police station for lodging report. He was having blood stained axe and injured dead body of his son Chaitram was found in his house. Witnesses has interrogated him although in Police Station premises but for away from the Police Officers. Extrajudicial confession made to police is not admissible in evidence and is hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act but extrajudicial confession made in the police station premises or any premises of police station is not hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. 11. Extrajudicial confession made to police is not admissible in evidence and is hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act but extrajudicial confession made in the police station premises or any premises of police station is not hit by under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. 11. In the present case appellant was immediately examined by doctor. His body was stained with blood and same was taken out with the help of cotton. His towel was also seized, same was examined by Forensic Science Laboratory and presence of blood over the body of appellant and towel which appellant was bearing was confirmed Ex. P-20. Present appellant has not offered any explanation to show that how his body was stained with blood. This alone circumstance is sufficient for connecting the appellant with crime in question and for drawing an inference that appellant is a person who culpable homicide amounting to murder of his son Chaitram. 12. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 13. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of multiple fatal injuries found over the body of Chaitram has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant on the other hand, otherwise also established by the evidence of PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala and autopsy report Ex. P-2 which reveals that as many as 9 injures found over the body of deceased including fatal injures over neck and scalp and death was homicidal in nature. 14. As regard the complicity of appellant in crime in question, conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the settled law in order to convict an accused based on the circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B.1 has held that: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof. 15. In case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence, as held by the Apex Court in the matter of C. Changa Reddy v. State of A.P.2, the prosecution is required to adduce evidence and such evidence must satisfying the following tests: i. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii. those circumstances should of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; iii. the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and iv. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 16. In the present case prosecution has relied the following circumstances: (i) Dead body of deceased Chaitram was found incised the room of appellant in injured condition. (ii) At the time of incident at night present appellant was present in the house at the time of commission of such offence. (iii) Present appellant has not offered any explanation that how Chaitram died and who has caused injury to Chaitram. (iv) Present appellant himself has gone to police station along with blood stained axe for lodging report. (v) Present appellant made extrajudicial confession to the witnesses. (vi) Body of present appellant was stained with blood and same was examined by doctor. (vii) Blood stained found over the body of appellant was taken out with the help of cotton by the doctor and same was sealed and sent for chemical examination. (v) Present appellant made extrajudicial confession to the witnesses. (vi) Body of present appellant was stained with blood and same was examined by doctor. (vii) Blood stained found over the body of appellant was taken out with the help of cotton by the doctor and same was sealed and sent for chemical examination. (viii) Blood stained towel which appellant was bearing was seized from the appellant by the Investigating Officer. (ix) Blood stained towel and axe were examined by Forensic Science Laboratory and presence of blood over axe and towel seized from the appellant and blood stained cotton taken from the body of appellant were confirmed vide Ex. P-22. 17. As per evidence of PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala he has examined appellant Shrichand on 14/6/03 vide Ex. P-3 no injury was found over his body but his body was stained with blood specially blood was found over both side of the chest, finger of left hand, both the legs, both the toe which was taken out for the help of cotton and was sealed and handed over to the Constable. He has also examined axe which was stained with blood Ex. P-4. In his cross examination he has explained that if the person caught hold the person who would be in bleeding condition even blood stained found on the body of the appellant would not be possible but stained may be occurred if the person will be present in close distance with the person whom other persons has caused injury. 18. PW3 Madandas, PW7 Kejuram, PW8 Sukhelal Ratre have deposed in their evidence that they came to know that son of appellant Chaitram has been murdered then they went to the house of appellant thereafter they went to the police station where appellant was present with axe. They called the appellant and asked in absence of police then he told and made extrajudicial confession that he has committed murder of his son Chaitram which they recorded Ex. P-9. 19. Defence has cross examined these witnesses at length in which they have specifically deposed that after calling the appellant in separate place in police station premises they have interrogated the appellant and appellant has made extrajudicial confession before them although PW10 Investigating Officer C.D. Lahre has deposed in Para-9 of his evidence that at the time of recording such Panchnama Ex. P-9 he was present. P-9 he was present. Definitely, in the present case Investigating Officer himself has directed the villagers to inquire from appellant and appellant himself present in the police station with blood stained axe, appellant has not made any extrajudicial confession to police but statement of PW10 Investigating Officer C.D. Lahre reveal that he was recorded extrajudicial confession made by appellant in his presence therefore only extrajudicial confession made by appellant to witnesses would not be safe for drawing definite conclusion that too relating to complicity of appellant in crime in question. Evidence of aforesaid witnesses including presence of PW10 Investigating Officer C.D. Lahre and defence taken by the appellant reveal that present appellant himself had gone to police station he was present at police station and was holding blood stained axe. As per evidence of doctor blood stained was found on different part of the body of appellant which was taken out with the help of cotton. Chemical examination report reveal that blood was confirmed on the cotton, axe and cloths which the appellant was bearing although blood group has not been detected by the Chemical Examiner. 20. In the present case present appellant has not offered any explanation that how blood was found over his body and in his cloths, who was present in the house at night and who had caused injuries to his son Chaitram as suggestion given by the defence to PW2 Dr. F.R. Nirala in Para-9 of his evidence, he has also not offered any explanation that who has caused injures to his son Chaitram or who was standing near his son Chaitram at the time of causing such injury. Appellant was present incised the house along with his son Chaitram at the time of commission of such incident who was under obligation to explain the circumstances in terms of under Section 106 of the Evidence Act but present appellant has not offered any explanation while along with the question of offence committed in secrecy and requirement of explanation. 21. Appellant was present incised the house along with his son Chaitram at the time of commission of such incident who was under obligation to explain the circumstances in terms of under Section 106 of the Evidence Act but present appellant has not offered any explanation while along with the question of offence committed in secrecy and requirement of explanation. 21. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra3, in case murder committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. Para 15 of the said judgment reads as under: 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. 22. In absence of any explanation the only inference would be possible that present appellant is a person who has committed the offence and is author of the crime and except appellant no other person has committed the offence. 23. If aforesaid circumstances are considered together then only inference would be possible that present appellant alone has committed the culpable homicide amounting to murder of his son Chaitram and other than the appellant nobody has committed the aforesaid offence. 24. After appreciating, the evidence available on record learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 24. After appreciating, the evidence available on record learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on legal, clinching and credible evidence and is sustainable under the law. 25. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appeal is devoid of merits. Consequently, criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.