I.A. Ansari, J.:- This revision is directed against the judg­ment and order, dated 11.07.2003, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 (3)72003, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the convic­tion of the accused-appellants under Section 394IPC, the appeal having been preferred by the accused- petitioners against the judg­ment and order, dated, 21.07.2011, passed, in NGR Case No.205/95, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, North Salmra, Abhayapuri, convicting the accused-petitioners under Section 394 IPC and sen­tencing each of them to suffer rigorous im­prisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default of payment of fine, suf­fer simple imprisonment for three months each. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: On 07.08.95, at about 11 pm, three persons entered into the house of the informant, Jayanta Das, of Hospital Colony quarter No.9, WardNo.3 of Abhayapuri Civil Hos­pital and threatened him (PW3) and his wife (P W1) with pistol and tied their hands and gagged their mouth. The persons, who had so entered, assaulted the informant, who, on having sustained injury on his index finger, opened, out of fear, his almirah, whereupon the persons, who had so entered into the house of the informant, collected a sum of Rs.700, in cash, and some valuable orna­ments. On being informed by his neighbour, Biren Dutta, that the informant's wife, Sukumari (PW1), had been shouting, Akhil Sharma (P W2), a neighbour of the inform­ant, entered into the house of the informant and, as soon as he entered into the house, his hands were tied and his mouth was gagged by those, who were already inside the house of the informant. Thereafter, the said miscre­ants took to their heels. On the first informa­tion being lodged, in this regard, with the po­lice, at Abhayapuri, a case was registered. During investigation, police apprehended two of the accused-petitioners, namely, Swapan Kumar Ariya and Gopen Roy, while they were proceeding with the booties and seized the recovered properties from their posses­sion. On interrogating the said two accused persons, police came to learn that the said two accused persons, along with accused Hari Das and accused Sajal Kumar Sutradhar, had committed robbery at the house of the inform­ant. This was followed by the arrest of the remaining two accused-persons, namely, Hari Das and Sajal Kumar Sutradhar. On interrogating the said two accused persons, police came to learn that the said two accused persons, along with accused Hari Das and accused Sajal Kumar Sutradhar, had committed robbery at the house of the inform­ant. This was followed by the arrest of the remaining two accused-persons, namely, Hari Das and Sajal Kumar Sutradhar. The investi­gating officer, then, sent all the arrested ac­cused to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magis­trate, Abhayapuri, for recording their confes­sional statements. The confessional state­ments, made by all the four accused, admit­ting their guilt involving themselves in the act of robbery, at the house of the informant, were accordingly recorded and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against all the four accused persons under Section 394 IPC. 3. To a charge, framed at the trial, under Section 394 IPC, all the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses includ­ing the investigating officer. The accused per­sons were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in their examinations aforemen­tioned, they admitted to have made the said confessional statements voluntarily. No evi­dence was, however, adduced by the de­fence. On having reached the conclusion that all the four accused persons were guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and pass sentence against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sen­tence passed against them, the convicted per­sons preferred an appeal. As the appeal has been dismissed, the accused persons are, now, before this Court with the present revi­sion. 5. I have heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, and Mr. K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Broadly in tune with evidence of her husband (PW3), PW1, who is the wife of the informant (PW3), has deposed that on 07.08.95, at about 11 pm, after cooking food in her kitchen, when she went to close the door of the house, three accused persons came to her house and one of the accused kept standing outside the house and when she raised hulla, one of the accused, pointing a pistol towards her, asked her not to shout. They, then, took her to her drawing room, where her husband was watching TV and, then, one of the accused persons put the pistol on her husband's head and snatched away one gold chain from her neck and, then, the three persons, who had so entered into her house, took her and her husband to their bed­room and asked them to open the almirah, they took one silver chain, one silver ring and gold ornaments from there and, thereafter, they took both the husband and wife to their drawing room and tied their hands and gagged their mouth. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that at that point of time, their neigh­bour, Akhil Sharma (PW2), came to their house and the accused persons tied his hands too and gagged his mouth with the help of a curtain. PW1 has deposed that after the mis­creants went away, Akhil Sharma (PW2) went out of their house and informed their neighbours about the occurrence, whereupon police were also informed, police arrested the accused and recovered the ornaments, which had been taken away from their house. 7. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW1 and PW3, PW2 (Akhil Sharma), has deposed that he works at Abhayapuri hospi­tal and that both he (P W3) and the informant reside at their departmental quarters. 8. Describing the occurrence, PW3 has deposed that on 07.08.95, at about 11 pm, when he was sleeping at his house, Biren Dutta, who resides in front of his quarter, told him that Sukumari (PW1) was shouting and asked him (PW2) to enquire as to what had happened, whereupon he (P W2) went to the house of PW1 and as soon as he entered into her house, one unknown person held a pistol in his head and asked him as to why he had entered there and, then, the miscreants took him (PW2) to the drawing room of PW1, where he saw that one accused was holding a pistol on the head of Jayanta Das (PW3), the miscreants tied his hands too and gagged his mouth and, in the meanwhile, somebody called the miscreants from the outside and they went away closing the door from the outside. It is in the evidence of P W2 that he went out opening the lock of the door of the bathroom and informed the neighbouring people about the occurrence and when they came back to Sukumari (P W1), they learnt that those, who had entered into their house, had run away with gold and silver ornaments. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that police came, ac­cused were apprehended and the properties, which had been taken away from the house of PW1 and PW3, were recovered from them. 9. PW4 and PW6 are seizure witnesses; whereas PW5 is the Judicial Officer, who re­corded the confessional statements of all the four accused persons and PW7 is the inves­tigating officer. 10. According to the evidence of the in­vestigating Officer (PW7), on 07.08.1995, he was the Officer-in-Charge of Abhayapuri Police Station and, on that day, at about 3-30 a.m., PW3 lodged an Ejahar and, based on this Ejahar, he made a GD entry (general diary entry) and started investigation. It is also in the evidence of PW7 that during the course of investigation, he visited the place of occur­rence, recorded the statements of the wit­nesses, prepared sketch map and arrested two of the accused, namely, Gopen Roy and Swapan Ariya, near the Tahsil Office, and recovered from them one torch light, a pair of gold writ let, a gold ring, etc., and seized the same. It is also in the evidence of PW7 (Investigating Officer) that, on being interro­gated, both the accused made statements implicating themselves with the occurrence of robbery, which had taken place at the house of PW 1, whereupon he sent both the accused to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magis­trate for recording their confessional state­ments. Though, in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it was suggested to him (P W7) by the defence that he had threat­ened the accused and obtained the confes­sional statements of the accused, the fact re­mains that all the four accused have, during the course of their examination, under Sec­tion 313 CrPC, admitted that they had made their respective confessional statements vol­untarily. 11. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that, in their respective confessional statements, the accused-petitioners clearly admitted the effect that they were the ones, who had committed robbery at the house of PW1. 12. 11. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that, in their respective confessional statements, the accused-petitioners clearly admitted the effect that they were the ones, who had committed robbery at the house of PW1. 12. From the cross-examination of PW5 (Judicial Magistrate), nothing could be elic­ited by the defence to show that the confes­sional statements, which the accused had made, were involuntary. This apart, as already indicated above, all the accused have admit­ted, during the course of their examination under Section 313 CrPC, that they had made their respective confessional statements vol­untarily. 13. It needs to be, now, noted that the conviction, in the present case, is based sub­stantially on the confessional statements of the accused. If the confessional statements are found to be voluntary and true, there is no impediment, in law, on the part of the Court, to convict an accused person, on the basis of his own confession, provided that the Court is satisfied that the confession was voluntarily made and that the confession made was true. The confessional statements, as can be seen from the confessional statement of accused Sajal Kumar Sutradhar, are, in effect, thus: "About 4/5 days ago, Haridas, Swapan Kumar Ariya, Gopen Roy and I made a plan and, according to that plan Swapan Kumar Ariya brought a duplicate pistol from Barpeta. On that day, all four of us together discussed our plan. At night, at 10-00 p.m., all four of us entered into the jungle near the house of Jayanta Das and, at about 11-00 p.m., we got the opportu­nity and we went to the house of Jayanta Das and when we peeped through the window of the house, we saw wife of Jayanta Das cooking meal. Thereafter, we entered into the house and Swapan, Gopen and I threatened Jayanta's wife by showing the duplicate pistol asked her to give money. At that time Haridas entered into the house. Haridas was carrying a dagger and he caught hold of Jayanta Das. When we asked for money, Jayanta took us towards the draw­ing room and opened the Godrej almirah and he took out, from the almirah, four hundred rupees, in cash (four 100 rupee notes), two bundles of one-rupee note, with one hundred rupees in each bundle, one gold ring and one silver ring. He also took out earings from the almirah. When we asked for money, Jayanta took us towards the draw­ing room and opened the Godrej almirah and he took out, from the almirah, four hundred rupees, in cash (four 100 rupee notes), two bundles of one-rupee note, with one hundred rupees in each bundle, one gold ring and one silver ring. He also took out earings from the almirah. As he threw these materials on the -floor, Haridash collected them and we fled away from there. That night, we all stayed at the house of Gopen. Next day, in the morning, while Hari, Swapan, Gopen and I started, one after another, for the Kirtan ghar, Sawpan and Gopen were caught by the SDPO near No. 2 L.P. School. In the mean­while, we reached Nanikala, and the SDPO came there and caught us." 14. It may be noted in this regard, that a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the question as to whether of confes­sional statement of the accused can consti­tute the basis for conviction, held, in Mithu Kalita @Mitu Kalita Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (1) GLT393, that there is no impediment in law in convicting an accused on the basis of his own confession if the Court finds that such confession is voluntary and true. The observation of the Division Bench, in Mithu Kalita (supra), appearing in paragraphs 34 and 35, read as under: "34. There is, it may be noted, no impedi­ment in law in convicting an accused on the basis of his own confession of the Court finds that such confession is voluntary and true. In the case at hand, we have already indicated hereinabove that the judicial confession of the accused was voluntary (See Shankania v. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1978 SC 1248 , Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1957 SC 637 and Shivappa vs. State of Kamataka: AIR 1995 SC 980 . 35. The question, now, therefore, is if the judicial confession of the accused is true too? How to ascertain if a voluntarily made judicial confession can be relied upon as true, one can recall the decision in Shakraria Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1978 SC 1248 ), wherein the Apex Court observed thus, '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. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1978 SC 1248 ), wherein the Apex Court observed thus, '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 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" 15. Before proceeding any further, what is important to bear in mind is that though a statement, recorded under Section 313 CrPC, is not a statement made on oath and is not, strictly speaking, evidence, yet the statement, so made, can, indeed, be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In no un­certain words made the Apex Court clear this position of law, when it observed and held, in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh: AIR 1992 SC 2100 as fol­lows: "51. That brings us to the question whether such a statement recorded under Section 313 of the code can constitute the sole basis for con­viction. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be evidence stricto sensu. That is why sub-section (3) says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he give false answer. Then comes sub-section (4), which reads "313 (4) The answers given by the ac­cused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed." Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above subsection. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said in­quiry or trial. See State of Maharashtra Vs. R. B. Chowdhari (1967) 3 SCR 708 : AIR 1968 SC 110 : 1968 Cri.LJ. 95). This Court, in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. State of M. B. (1953 Cri.LJ. 1933 : AIR 1953 SC 468 ) held that an answer given by an accused under Section 313 examination can be use4Jbr proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecu­tion witness. In Narain Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1963) 3 SCR 678 : (1964) 1 Cril. 730), this Court held that if the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged, the Court may, relying upon that con­fession, proceed to convict him. To State the exact language in which the three Judge bench answered the question, it would be advanta­geous to reproduce the relevant observations at page 684-685:. "under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the first subsection, insofar as it is material, the Court may, at any stage of the enquiry or trial and after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called upon for his defence, shall put questions to the accused person for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circum­stance appearing, in the evidence, against him. Examination under Section 342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation, if any, of the incident, which forms the subject-matter of the charge and his defence. By sub­section (3), the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration' at the enquiry or the trial. By sub­section (3), the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration' at the enquiry or the trial. If the accused person in his exami­nation under Section 342 confesses to the com­mission of the offence charged against him, the Court may, relying upon that confession, pro­ceed to convict him; but if he does not confess an, explaining circumstance, appearing in the evidence against him, sets up his own version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into considera­tion in its entirety." "Sub-Section (1) of Section 313 corresponds to sub-section (1) of Section 342 of the old Code except that it, now, stands bifurcated in two parts with the proviso added thereto clarifying that in summons case, where the presence of the accused is dispensed with, his examination un­der clause (b) may also be dispensed with. Sub Section (2) of Section 313 reproduces the old sub-section (4) and the present sub-section (3) corresponds to the old sub-section (2) except for the change necessitated on account of the abolition of the jury system. The present sub­section (4) with which we are concerned is a verbatim reproduction of the old sub-section (3). Therefore, the aforestated observations apply with equal force." [emphasis is supplied] 16. From what have been observed and laid down in Sukhdev Singh (supra), it be­comes transparent that if an accused person, in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, confesses to the commission of the offence (s) charged with, the Court may, relying upon such confession, proceed to convict the ac­cused and it is only when the accused does not confess and/or the accused chooses to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him or sets up his own ver­sion of the occurrence claiming to the effect that he had committed no offence, the state­ment of the accused, made during the course of examination under Section 313 CrPC, can be considered in its entirety along with other pieces of evidence on record. To put it a little differently, there is no impediment in law for a Court to found conviction of an accused on his confession made by him during his exami­nation under Section 313 CrPC and/or to rely upon an admission of facts made by an ac­cused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. 17. To put it a little differently, there is no impediment in law for a Court to found conviction of an accused on his confession made by him during his exami­nation under Section 313 CrPC and/or to rely upon an admission of facts made by an ac­cused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. 17. It further logically follows from what have been observed and laid down, in Sukhdev Singh (supra), that an admission of a piece of evidence, which an accused may voluntarily make, at the stage of his examina­tion under Section 313 CrPC, can be relied upon and there is no impediment, in law, in convicting an accused on such admission made in the statement under Section 313 CrPC if such statement, taken in its entirety, in the light of the other evidence on record, proves beyond doubt that the accused is the one, who has committed the offence. 18. The legal position, as discussed above, with regard to the object and scope of Sec­tion 313 CrPC, is further reinforced by a three Judge Bench decision in State of U. P. Vs. Lakhmi, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 336 . In order to appreciate the law, on the use of the statement of an accused made under Section 313 CrPC, it is necessary to take note of the material facts of the case in Lakhmi (supra), wherein accused Lakhmi faced the charge of murder for having put his wife to death inten­tionally. Prosecutions case was largely based on the testimony of PW2 (Ramey). On the day of the occurrence, according to prosecu­tion, Lakhmi inflicted blows with a phalli (a spade-like agricultural implement) on the head of the deceased. Her skull got smashed and she died on the spot. Ramey, who claims to have been working in the adjacent field, claimed that on hearing the screams of the deceased, he had rushed to the house of the accused and, on peeping through the win­dows, witnessed the accused smashing his wife's head by giving her blows with a phalli and, on hue and cry being raised by him (PW2), some neighbours, who heard the noise, came to the place of occurrence, broke open the door, which was bolted from inside, and overpowered the assailant. During the course of examination, of the accused, under Section 313 CrPC, in Lakhmi (supra), one of the questions, put by the Court to the ac­cused and the answer to the question read as follows: "what have you to say about the evidence of Ramey (PW2J that he peeped through the window and saw you standing near her bed and you killed her with phalli (Ex. Ka-1) and Kunda(Ex.Ka-2)?" The answer of the accused to the said ques­tion was this: "it was not like that. I murdered her with a kunda and not with a phalli." 19. The learned Sessions Judge, in Lakhmi (supra), convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court, while acquitting the appellant, held the evi­dence of PW2 (Ramey) was not credit wor­thy and at any rate, his evidence had received no corroboration from any other reliable evi­dence. While so acquitting the accused, the High Court did not attribute any importance to the answers, given by the appellant, which we have reproduced hereinabove, wherein, he had practically, admitted, that he had killed his wife. 20. In the circumstances, as mentioned above, the Supreme Court, in Lakhmi (su­pra), has pointed out that answers to ques­tions put to the accused may be, on most of the occasions, flat denial or outright repudia­tion of those circumstances, but, in certain cases, the accused would offer some expla­nations to the incriminating circumstances and in very rare instances, the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him, perhaps, for the pur­pose of adopting legally recognized defences. In all such cases, points the Apex Court in Lakhmi (supra), the Court gets the advan­tage of knowing the version of the accused about those aspects and it helps the Court to effectively appreciate and evaluate the evi­dence in the case. If an accused admits any incriminating circumstance, appearing in the evidence against him, there is no warrant for the proposition that those admissions should altogether be ignored merely on the ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy. 21. If an accused admits any incriminating circumstance, appearing in the evidence against him, there is no warrant for the proposition that those admissions should altogether be ignored merely on the ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy. 21. Having pointed out that Sub-Section (4) of Section 313 amounts to a legislative guideline for the Courts to give due weight to the answers, which an accused may give to the question put to him, the Court has clari­fied, in Lakhmi (supra), that when answers, given by an accused, contain admissions of circumstances appearing against him and when such admissions are not de-linked from the evidence, such admissions can be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had com­mitted the offence. 22. As far as the voluntariness of the con­fessional statements, in the present case, is concerned, there can be no escape from the conclusion, in the face of the evidence on record and the admission of the accused-pe­titioners during the course of their examina­tion, under Section 313 CrPC, that they had voluntarily confessed. There is nothing in the confessional statements to indicate that what they had confessed was untrue or false. The confessional statements are in consonance with the evidence on record and no incon­sistency or contradiction between the con­fessional statements of the accused-petition­ers, on the one hand, and the evidence on record, on the other, could either be noticed or could be pointed out on behalf of the ac­cused-petitioners. 23. hi the circumstances indicated above, the confessional statements have to be held, and I do hold, as voluntary and true. 24. Situated thus, this Court does not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the conclu­sion, reached by the learned trial Court, that the accused-petitioners were guilty of the of­fence charged with. 25. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find any merit in this revision. This revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 26. Let the accused-petitioners surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abhayapuri, to serve the sentence of imprisonment passed against them. 27. Send back the LCR.