JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgement and order, dated 28.06.2006, passed, in Sessions Case No. 36 (NL)/2005, by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to suffer, for his conviction under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default in payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month and also to under, for his conviction under Section 201 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 (one) month, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described thus: On 13.10.2004, the dead body of Indira Gogoi, wife of accused Kusum Gogoi, was found floating in Kora river and, on that very day, i.e., 13.10.2010, Deben Gogoi (PW 4) lodged a written Ejahar, at Dhakuakhana Police Station, stating to the effect, inter alia, that his niece, Indira Gogoi, who had been married to Kusum Gogoi about 1 years back, was murdered by her husband, on 11.10.2004, and, after killing her, the accused, Kusum Gogoi, threw her dead body into Kora river at Dighalgaon. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Dhakuakhana Police Station Case No. 131/2004, under Section 302 /201 IPC, was registered against the accused. 2. During the course of investigation, the floating dead body of Indira Gogoi was recovered by the police from the Kora river with the help of the members of the public, inquest was held over the said dead body and the same was subjected to post mortem examination. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 302 /201 IPC. 3. When the charges, under Section 302 /201 IPC were framed against the accused, during trial, the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether sixteen witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 CrPC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether sixteen witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 CrPC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offences charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, passed against him, the convicted person has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. M. L. Gope, learned amicus curiae. We have also heard Mr. K. A. Majumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. There is, admittedly, no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution's case rests, amongst others, on the judicial confession, which the accused-appellant had made, the circumstantial evidence surrounding disappearance of Indira Gogoi from the house of the accused, the inquest report and the medical evidence on record. 8. Let us, first, consider the evidence of the informant (PW 4). According to his evidence, deceased Indira Gogoi was his niece, she having been given in marriage to accused Kusum Gogoi as his third wife. 9. As regards the occurrence, PW 4 has deposed that, one day, when he was proceeding towards field to make his cattle graze, some women, who were working in the paddy field, raised hulla saying that they had seen a female dead body floating in the water of Kora river, whereupon he (PW 4), accompanied by one Gopal Gogoi and one Tulshi Gogoi, rushed to the spot and saw a dead body floating on the river with its hands and legs tied by rope, the face of the body swollen. PW 4 has deposed that he, immediately, recognized the dead body to be of his niece, Indira Gogoi, and though he visited the house of the accused, he did not find the accused present in his house and, on receiving information from him (PW 4), police arrived and the dead body was recovered. 10. PW 4 has deposed that he, immediately, recognized the dead body to be of his niece, Indira Gogoi, and though he visited the house of the accused, he did not find the accused present in his house and, on receiving information from him (PW 4), police arrived and the dead body was recovered. 10. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 4, the Investigating Officer (PW 15) has deposed that, on 13.10.2004, while he was posted at Dhakuakhana Police Station, his Officer-in-Charge received an FIR (Exhibit 5) from PW 4 and entrusted him (PW 15) with the investigation, whereupon he arrived at the place, where the dead body had been found floating in the river, and also informed the nearest Magistrate about the recovery of the dead body from the Kora river. 11. PW 11, who is an Executive Magistrate, has deposed that, on receiving the information from the Investigating Officer (PW 15), he (PW 11) came to Kora river, at Dighalgaon, and found that a female dead body, with its hands and legs tied by rope, had been recovered and that the said dead body was identified to be that of one Indira Gogoi, wife of accused Kusum Gogoi. It is in the evidence of PW 11 that he found that the tongue of the deceased woman was protruding, he also witnessed some injury marks below the breasts of the deceased woman, the dead body was afloat and in decomposed state and that he prepared an inquest report on the spot, which is Exhibit 4. It is also in the evidence of PW 11 that PW 8, PW 9, PW 10, PW 13 and PW 14 were present at the place, where inquest was held over the said dead body and they witnessed the inquest report being prepared by him. 12. From the evidence of PW 4, PW 15 and PW 11, what becomes clear is that the dead body of the deceased, Indira Gogoi, was recovered from the river Kora, at Dighalgaon. 12. From the evidence of PW 4, PW 15 and PW 11, what becomes clear is that the dead body of the deceased, Indira Gogoi, was recovered from the river Kora, at Dighalgaon. It also becomes clear from the evidence, given by the witnesses, coupled with the inquest report, which had been prepared, that there was an injury mark on the backside of the head of the said deceased and a ligature mark on the neck, the tongue of the deceased woman was found protruding outside and that there was a injury mark also on the chest below her breasts. 13. Bearing in mind that have been pointed out above, when we turn to the judicial confession, which was made by the accused, we find that the judicial confession was recorded by PW 16, who was a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, at Dhakuakhana. The evidence, given by the Magistrate (PW 16) shows that the accused was produced before him, on 14.10.2004, and, on being so produced, the Magistrate explained to the accused, amongst others, the consequences of making confessional statement and allowed him (the accused) time for reflection with an order to produce the accused on the following day, i.e., on 15.10.2004, at 11-00 a.m., and the accused was accordingly produced before him (PW 16) on 15.10.2004. 14. What has been noted above clearly shows that the accused was given sufficient time for refection. Not only this, on his production before the Magistrate, on 15.10.2004, the accused was, again, cautioned by the Magistrate about the consequences of making confession making it also clear to the accused that he (PW 16) was a Magistrate and not a police officer, that the accused was not bound to make any confession and if the accused chose to make confession, the same may be used against him (the accused) and that he was at liberty to say whatever he desired to say. In order to allay any fear of the police subjecting him to any torture, PW 16 also made it clear to the accused that even if he (the accused) chose not to make any confession, he would not be sent back to police custody. To the assurances, so given by PW 16, the accused responded by saying that he had understood his position. To the assurances, so given by PW 16, the accused responded by saying that he had understood his position. Apart form the cautions, which PW 16 had so taken, he had also enquired from the accused as to whether the accused wanted to make the confession out of fear of the police, but the accused replied in the negative and it was, thereafter, that the confession of the accused was recorded, which has been proved as Exhibit 9. The evidence of PW 16 also makes it clear that no one, not even a policeman, was present at the time, when the accused made his confessional statement. It was in these circumstances that PW 16 certified the confessional statement of the accused to have been made by him (accused) voluntarily. 15. What is, now, of immense importance to note is that the confession, which the accused had made before PW 16, was not retracted until the time the stage for cross-examination of PW 16 reached. This belated retraction of the judicial confession pales into insignificance, when we notice that even when the Investigating Officer was cross-examined by the defence, the defence did not, in any manner, suggest to the Investigating Officer that the accused had been beaten and/or tortured and/or abused by the police or compelled by the police to make any confession. In such circumstances, the mere suggestion, offered to the Magistrate (PW 16), that the confession, which the accused had made, was involuntary, does not inspire confidence. A suggestion, it must be borne in mind, is not evidence until the time the suggestion is probablised by the evidence on record. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the confession, which the accused had made, was an involuntarily made confession. 16. In his confession, the accused has clearly stated thus, On the night of the last 10th October, I had quarrel with my wife, Indira Gogoi. I had hit with the handle of a 'Khamti-dao' on her chest and injured her, and she became unconscious and died on the spot. I had thrown her body to river, 'Kora' on the same night. 17. Before proceeding further, it needs to be noted that there is no impediment in founding conviction of an accused on the basis of his own confession if the Court finds that the confession has been made voluntarily and that the confession is true. 18. I had thrown her body to river, 'Kora' on the same night. 17. Before proceeding further, it needs to be noted that there is no impediment in founding conviction of an accused on the basis of his own confession if the Court finds that the confession has been made voluntarily and that the confession is true. 18. It clearly transpires from what have been pointed out above, that the confession, in the present case, was, in the light of the evidence on record, a voluntarily made confession. In order, however, to judge if the confession was true, one of the means open to the Court is that the Court shall compare the confession with the catalogue of the events, which surface from the evidence on record, and if the confession fits into the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances, the Court can treat the confession to be true. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the case of Sankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1978 SC 1248 ), wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: ....If the first test is satisfied, the Court must, before acting upon the confession, reach the finding that what is stated therein is true and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a confession, or for that matter of any substantive piece of evidence, there is no rigid cannon of universal application. Even so, one broad method, which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession may be indicated. The court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and probabilities of the case. If, on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test. (Emphasis added) 19. In the present case, in order to determine if the judicial confession, made by the accused, is true, we may, now, look into the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances. It needs to be noted, in this regard, that PW 7 is the daughter of the accused. Her evidence is to the effect that deceased Indira Gogoi was her step-mother. It needs to be noted, in this regard, that PW 7 is the daughter of the accused. Her evidence is to the effect that deceased Indira Gogoi was her step-mother. With regard to the occurrence, PW 7 has deposed that she used to live with her father and the said deceased in the same house in which her father lived with the said deceased. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that, on 11.10.2004, i.e., two days before the recovery of the dead body of Indira Gogoi, while her father was working in the morning, he asked Indira Gogoi to bring wine and, as she was a little late in bringing wine, her father slapped Indira Gogoi and rebuked her and that, at night, they all went to sleep after having dinner, but, at about 11-00/12-00 o'clock, her father woke her up and said that Indira was not present at home, whereupon they searched for Indira in the neighbouring places by taking a lamp, but they did not find her. Surprisingly enough, the accused, whose wife had so disappeared, as had been claimed by the accused, did not inform the police or made any serious attempt on the following day (i.e. on 12.10.2004) to find out as to where his wife, Indira Gogoi, had been. This is a circumstance, which cannot be ignored. 20. In the light of the evidence given by PW 7, daughter of the accused, that her father had told her, at about 11-00/12-00 o'clock, at night, that her mother had been missing, when one reverts to the confessional statement of the accused, it transpires that, according to his confessional statement, the accused had a quarrel with his wife, Indira Gogoi, at about 11-00 a.m., and he assaulted her by a Khamti Dao below her chest and as a result of the assault, Indira Gogoi instantly died and, then, her dead body was thrown into the river on the same night. 21. PW 11, the Executive Magistrate, who prepared the inquest report, also found signs of injury below the breasts of the said deceased. In tune with the confessional statement of the accused, the dead body was recovered from the Kora river. 21. PW 11, the Executive Magistrate, who prepared the inquest report, also found signs of injury below the breasts of the said deceased. In tune with the confessional statement of the accused, the dead body was recovered from the Kora river. Though there were multiple injuries on the dead body and the hands and feet were tied, the other injuries could have been caused as a result of the fall, when the dead body had been thrown into the river by the accused. 22. What cannot, however, be ignored is the fact that the inquest report as well as the medical evidence on record reveals that the tongue of Indira Gogoi stood protruded. It is difficult to imagine a situation, where, after the death of the deceased, her tongue could have come out. The medical evidence on record reveals, as can be seen from the deposition of the doctor (PW 1), that there was continuous ligature mark on the neck of the said deceased. The possibility, therefore, of Indira Gogoi having been killed by strangulation cannot be ruled out. No wonder, therefore, that the doctor has opined that the cause of death was strangulation of the neck, the same being homicidal in nature. 23. Though the accused has not stated anything in his confessional statement showing that he had strangulated his wife, the fact remains that various other pieces of evidence, which we have culled out above, clearly fit into the description of the occurrence, which the accused-appellant has given in his judicial confession. It is needless to say that every part of a confessional statement, given by an accused, need not necessarily be corroborated in order to prove the offence committed by the accused. If there is general corroboration of the events mentioned in a confessional statement, which is, otherwise, proved to be a voluntary confession, such a confessional statement can be relied upon as a truthfully made confessional statement if the confessional statement, otherwise, inspires confidence. 24. If there is general corroboration of the events mentioned in a confessional statement, which is, otherwise, proved to be a voluntary confession, such a confessional statement can be relied upon as a truthfully made confessional statement if the confessional statement, otherwise, inspires confidence. 24. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we have no hesitation in concurring with the conclusion, reached by the learned trial Court, that the judicial confession, made by the accused received substantial corroboration from the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as medical evidence on record and his confessional statement clearly proves that he had intentionally killed his wife, Indira Gogoi, and threw her dead body into the Kora river in order to cause disappear the evidence of offence of murder, which he had committed. 25. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the evidence on record, adduced by the prosecution, proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused-appellant was the one, who had killed his wife, Indira Gogoi, and threw her dead body into the Kora river. The conviction of the accused-appellant, under Section 302 and 201 IPC, cannot, therefore, be interfered with inasmuch as the same is consistent with the evidence on record and the law relevant thereto. We do not notice any infirmity, legal or factual, in the findings of guilt reached against the accused-appellant by the learned trial Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that this appeal is wholly without merit and deserves to be dismissed. 26. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 27. Send back the LCR. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the valuable assistance rendered to this Court. We may, however, indicate, that according to what has been submitted by the learned amicus curiae, the said sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the Legal Aid Cell of the High Court. Appeal dismissed