JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The appellant in this Jail Criminal Appeal assails his conviction and sentence u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as "I.P.C." for brevity, in Sessions Case No.96-B of 2000 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Bolangir. 2. The prosecution alleges that the appellant and his wife, the informant Nupura Patel (P.W.1) were residing along with deceased Smt. Jasoda Patel, who happens to be the elder sister of Nupura. The appellant was staying with his wife and the deceased Jasoda, being the illatom son-in-law (Gharajoin). Jasoda was a widow and maintaining the entire family by purchasing earthen pots from Loisingha and selling the same at Sambalpur. The occurrence took place on 12.04.2000, a Wednesday. As usual, the deceased Jasoda had been to Sambalpur from Loisingha by train taking earthen pots to sell and Gouranga Meher (P.W.2) had accompanied her. Deceased Jasoda used to return in the night but on the fateful night she did not return. P.W.1 Nupura Patel searched but could not get any trace of her. On 14.04.2000, i.e. on Friday, dead body of the deceased Jasoda was found lying in a well in the land of one Bihari Agrawala near Loisingha Railway Station. Nupura Patel (P.W.1) therefore, lodged the F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge, Loisingha Police Station suspecting the appellant as he was in the habit of quarreling with Jasoda. Moreover, she has further reported that on the following day of occurrence, i.e. on Thursday, Nupura saw the accused bringing a pair of Chapal of Jasoda and keeping the same inside a gunny bag. She also marked some scratch marks on the face and body of the accused which appeared to be nail marks and the accused in the night of occurrence i.e. on the Wednesday returned home at about mid-night. Accordingly, she suspected the accused to be the author of the crime. 3. In course of investigation, the investigating Officer seized the pair of Chappal concealed by the accused. He also seized a nose-flower belonging to the deceased. Moreover, while in custody, the appellant gave a statement before the police, which led to the discovery of the weapon of offence i.e. Tabli (axe). On the basis of such materials and the alleged extra-judicial confession, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused u/s 302 of the I.P.C. 4. He also seized a nose-flower belonging to the deceased. Moreover, while in custody, the appellant gave a statement before the police, which led to the discovery of the weapon of offence i.e. Tabli (axe). On the basis of such materials and the alleged extra-judicial confession, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused u/s 302 of the I.P.C. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, whereas the defense examine none. The defense took the plea of the complete denial. He specifically stated that he has been implicated in this case falsely on suspicion. 5. After taking into consideration the evidence led, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, proceeded to convict the accused u/s 302/201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years u/s 201 of the I.P.C. Such conviction and sentence have been assailed in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the appellant should be acquitted. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction should be sustained. 7. In a case of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the first and foremost duty of the Court to see whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or not. In this case, the prosecution has examined Dr. S.K. Behera (P.W.10), who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The doctor has stated on oath that on 14:04.2000, he was Assistant Surgeon in the District Headquarters Hospital. On that date, he had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Jasoda Patel of Kumbharpada, Loisingha and found the following injuries :- (1) Lacerated wound 4" x 2" x 2" on the middle of head. (2) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" x 2" on the face below the left eye. (3) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" x 2" on the front of next below the thyroid cartilage. (2) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" x 2" on the face below the left eye. (3) Lacerated wound 3" x 2" x 2" on the front of next below the thyroid cartilage. On dissection, he found that the brain matter was torn into pieces and trachea, esophagus were ruptured and cut into pieces in front of neck. The cause of death was due to massive hemorrhage and shock. He found the time of death was within 48 hours by the time of postmortem examination. He opined that the injuries found on the deceased were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. He also opined that the injuries found on the deceased were possible by the Tangia. Thus, the evidence of this witness clearly indicates that the deceased had suffered homicidal nature of death and the injuries she has sustained can be possible by the axe i.e. M.Os. IX and X, being the broken Tangia and its handle. 8. The case of the prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, if the following conditions are satisfied regarding the circumstances, on which it relies; (i) Each of the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be credibly and cogently established by unimpeachable evidence; (ii) It should not be consistent with any hypothesis of innocence of the accused or in other words, such circumstance must be consistent with the theory of guilt of the accused; (ii) Each of the circumstances taken together may not been ought to prove the guilt of the accused but taken together, it must be forming a complete chain of circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 9. In this case, prosecution has relied on the following circumstances, in addition to the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature :- (i) The earlier conduct of the accused is that he was always quarreling with the deceased and threatened her and the informant to assault. (ii) The presence of nail marks on his face and chest as deposed to by the P.W.1. (iii) The conduct of the accused in concealing the Chapal belonging to the deceased on Thursday i.e. day following the date when the deceased was murdered. (ii) The presence of nail marks on his face and chest as deposed to by the P.W.1. (iii) The conduct of the accused in concealing the Chapal belonging to the deceased on Thursday i.e. day following the date when the deceased was murdered. (iv) The extra-judicial confession made before P.W.5 Gula Putel; (v) The recovery of the golden Nakafula from one Bihari Rana coupled with the fact that the accused and the said Bihari Rana had gone to P.W.3 for the purpose of selling the same. (vi) P.W.1 has identified the Nakafula to be that of her elder sister. (vii) The leading to discovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. 10. In order to judge, whether the evidence of the witnesses has sufficiently established by the circumstances or not, it would be proper for this Court to examine the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution carefully. P.W.1 Nupura Patel has stated that her husband remains in their house as domesticated son-in-law (Gharajoin) of her father and the entire family depends upon the earning of her sister Jasoda. Jasoda was selling earthen pots taking from Loisingha to Sambalpur by train and, as Such, as usual on the date of occurrence, she had been to Sambalpur from Loisingha by train, but she did not return to her house in the night itself. P.W.1 searched and later on Friday she found a dead body on the well. She deposed about the enmity of the accused against Jasoda and also stated that the accused in the occurrence night came in dead of the night and she saw accused was bringing a pair of chapal of Jasoda and keeping the same inside a gunny bag. P.W.1 also saw scratch mark on the face and body of the accused, which appeared to be nail marks. She has also deposed about the seizure of the Chapal. 11. Gouranga Meher had accompanied the deceased Jasoda by train to Sambalpur. He has further deposed that both of them returned to Loisingha by train at about 8 P.M. and went to their respective houses. Thus, it is clear that on that day, Jasoda returned from Sambalpur and reached at Loisingha Railway Station at 8 P.M. and proceeded towards her house. But as it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1, she did not reach her house. 12. P.W.3 Govinda Sarangi is goldsmith. Thus, it is clear that on that day, Jasoda returned from Sambalpur and reached at Loisingha Railway Station at 8 P.M. and proceeded towards her house. But as it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1, she did not reach her house. 12. P.W.3 Govinda Sarangi is goldsmith. He has deposed under oath that the accused and Bihar Rana (not examined) came and showed him a nose flower and wanted to weigh and know the cost of the nose-flower. He weighed it and told its coast to be Rs. 150/-. That was a Thursday. Thus, the nose-flower produced by the said Bihari Rana was seized by the Investigating Officer and has been marked as M.O.V. P.W.1 has identified M.O.V. to be one of the nose-flower (Naka putki) to be that of the deceased. Though the nose-flower was not put to any test identification parade, but it is well known that ladies have uncanny ability to identify the belongings for other ladies, especially ornaments, with whom they are close. Her identification of the nose flower of the informant in the Court is proper even though not tested by any previous test identification parade. Moreover, the defense has not disputed the identification made by the informant, P.W.1. 13. P.W.5, Gula Putel is a neighbor of P.W.1. He stated that the accused was residing in the house of his in-laws as Gharajoin. The family was being maintained by Jasoda. He got information about the death of Jasoda. He has also become a witness to the inquest, seizures etc. On Thursday, he further stated that the accused confessed before him that he has killed Jasoda and brought the pair of chappal and concealed the same in his house. The evidence of P.W.5 as far as the extra-judicial confession is concerned has remained unassailed in the cross-examination, inasmuch as, the defense has not been able to shake the credibility of the witness with respect to the extrajudicial confession. Moreover, the witness being a neighbor of the accused appears to be a man of good acquaintance and, as such, the confession made before him becomes admissible. 14. Moreover, the witness being a neighbor of the accused appears to be a man of good acquaintance and, as such, the confession made before him becomes admissible. 14. It is further evident from the statement of the Investigating Officer that he arrested the accused on 14.04.2000 at 9 P.M. and while in his custody the appellant, in presence of witnesses, made a disclosure statement and further stated that he had kept concealed the Tabli (Axe) under the sand near Trisuel Bandh (tank) and the broken pieces of bangles were thrown by him near the spot of occurrence. The accused also led the police staff to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon of offence which, the Investigating officer seized vide seizure list, Ext.7. The accused also led for discovery of broken wooden handle of the axe. Disclosure statement has been recorded as Ext.9. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the statement u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was recorded after recovery of the weapon of offence and hence the said seizure cannot be held to have been proved. Section 27 of the Indian 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. A bare reading of the section reveals that previous statement Is not required to be reduced into writing. In order to have a transparent investigation, the Investigating Officer is required to reduce the statement of the accused into writing. In this case, it appears from Exts.7, 8 and 9 that the accused has, while in police custody, led to the recovery of the axe and the broken handle. This fact has also been reflected in two seizure lists, Exts.7 and 8, though on the same day after recovery of the same, a statement has been recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This fact has also been reflected in two seizure lists, Exts.7 and 8, though on the same day after recovery of the same, a statement has been recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Considering the nature of the materials available on record in this case, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Investigating Officer, though it can be said that the procedure adopted is somewhat contrary to the usual practice. The most important thing while considering the circumstantial evidence of leading to discovery is whether the object was discovered on the information given by the accused to the police while he is in police custody. This Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case that on the information given by the accused to the Investigating Officer, an axe and a broken handle have been seized. 16. It is further evident from the chemical examination report that the axe and the broken handle were with blood group B. It is further evident that the wearing apparels i.e. Red Saya of the deceased were also stained with human blood of B group. The nail clipping of the accused also shows that there was moderate human blood of the group 'B'. These circumstances point out that the blood of the deceased was of B group, which matches with the blood group found from weapon of the offence and the broken handle. Thus, a clear connection is made between the crime and the objects discovered at the instance of the accused. This is a very strong piece of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 17. Thus, on a conspectus of the evidence on record, the impugned judgment in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the following circumstances by cogent evidence. 17. Thus, on a conspectus of the evidence on record, the impugned judgment in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the following circumstances by cogent evidence. (1) The conduct of the accused in frequently quarreling with the deceased; (2) The nail marks found on the face and chest of the deceased by the informant; (3) The conduct of the accused in concealing the Chapal belonging to the deceased in a gunny bag, which was later on seized; (4) The homicidal nature of the death of the deceased with ante mortem injuries which can be caused by the axe seized in this case; (5) Extra-judicial confession made before the P.W.3; (6) Seizure of Nakaputi (nose flower) produced by Bihari Rana; (7) Discovery of the weapon of offence by the disclosure statement of the accused in police custody; and (8) Finding of moderate human blood of group-B in the nail clipping of the accused. All the circumstances taken together unerringly point at the accused to be the author of the crime. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the learned Sessions Judge has committed no illegality by convicting the accused for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. Hence, conviction for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. is upheld. However, there is no clear evidence that the accused has deliberately caused disappearance of evidence. Therefore, his conviction u/s 201 of the I.P.C. is set aside. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Pradip Mohanty, J. 18. I agree. Final Result : Allowed