Judgment : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for three months; he is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for three months in Sessions Case No.131 of 2003 by II Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik. Hence this appeal. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal is as under : (i) The appellant herein was married to Suman, daughter of Pandurang Khade. On the festival of Ashadhi Ekadashi Suman alongwith her husband visited house of her father at Khadyachiwadi. They stayed there for a few days. On 13/9/2002 the couple departed from village Khadyachiwadi. Pandurang offered to pay fare for the State Transport bus. However, the appellant informed him that they would prefer to walk down to their village instead of wasting time for waiting for S.T. Bus. On the way they met Sonyabai. On 14/9/2002 father of the appellant visited the house of Pandurang Khade and enquired about his son and daughter-in-law. Pandurang informed him that they had departed from his house on 13/9/2002. The father of the appellant as well as father of Suman began to search for both of them. However, no traces were found. Finally on 9/10/2002 Dagu Bandkoli, father of the appellant lodged missing report in Harsul Police Station. (ii) On 31/5/2003 Pandurang had been to village Vaghad to meet his relatives. When they were in the field of Kacharu Gaikwad, they saw appellant proceeding towards newly constructed house of Kacharu Gaikwad. Upon seeing Pandurang, the appellant took to his heals and manage to escape. In the course of roving enquiry Pandurang learnt that one Motiram of village Kochargaon had employed the appellant in the field of Gaikwad. Pandurang and his relatives therefore went to the house of Motiram. They found that the appellant was in the house of Motiram. However, Suman was not with him. They enquired with the appellant. He then confessed before Pandurang and relatives that he had killed Suman. However, he was not prepared to disclose as to how he disposed off the corpse of Suman. They found that the appellant was in the house of Motiram. However, Suman was not with him. They enquired with the appellant. He then confessed before Pandurang and relatives that he had killed Suman. However, he was not prepared to disclose as to how he disposed off the corpse of Suman. Pandurang and his relatives were therefore, constrained to take the accused to Harsul Police Station. While at Harsule Police Station, the appellant disclosed to the police that after he killed Suman, he buried her corpse near a Nala near the hills of Dhulai. The accused then offered to show the place where he had concealed the corpse of Suman. He then led them to a Nala near the hills of Dhulai of village Vilwandi. There was a heap of stones. He then removed the stones. A skeleton was found with saree, blouse, neckless and bangles. Pandurang identified the articles as that belonging to Suman. The statement of the accused was recorded which led to the discovery of the dead body. Pandurang Khade then lodged a report at Harsul Police Station. On the basis of which Crime No.17 of 2003 was registered against the accused/appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on 4/6/2003. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 26/8/2003. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to being home the guilt to the accused. 3. P.W.1 Prabhakar Shelar was attached to Harsul Police Station as a Police Head Constable. According to him, 9/10/2002 at about 3 p.m. Dagu came to Harsule police station and lodged a report that his son Ananda and his daughter-in-law Suman had been to the house of Pandurang i.e. the father of Suman on 5/9/2002 and had not returned. He further contended that upon enquiry with Pandurang it was revealed that they left the house of Pandurang on 13/9/2002. He had also enquired with the relatives and according to them, the couple had not visited any one of them. On the basis of his report, a missing complaint No.8 of 2002 was registered and search had initiated. On 4/6/2003 P.W. 1 was at the police station. Pandurang and their relatives brought the accused Ananda to the police station. He had also enquired with the relatives and according to them, the couple had not visited any one of them. On the basis of his report, a missing complaint No.8 of 2002 was registered and search had initiated. On 4/6/2003 P.W. 1 was at the police station. Pandurang and their relatives brought the accused Ananda to the police station. In the presence of others, P.W. 1 enquired with Ananda in respect of whereabouts of Suman and he disclosed that he had throttled Suman to death on 13/9/2002. He had also disclosed that he had buried her dead body near Nala near hills of Dhulai. P.W. 1 had accompanied Ananda when he had led the relatives and the police to the discovery of the dead body of Suman. Missing report lodged by P.W.1 is at Exh. 8. The said initiation of proceedings in the form of missing report is not seriously challenged by the defence. 4. P.W.2 Pandurang Khade is the father of deceased Suman. According to him, Accused-Ananda and Suman had come to his house for pola festival. They stayed in the house of P.W. 2 for one week and thereafter at about 5 p.m. they decided to return to their own village. When P.W. 2 offered to pay fare for the S.T. bus, the accused/appellant said that he would prefer to walk to his village. On the next day, Dagu had been to the house of P.W. 2 to enquire about the couple. However, he was informed by the father of the deceased that they had left the village. P.W. 2 then proceeded from village to village in search of Ananda and Suman. According to P.W. 2, after about 10 months of the missing of Suman, he had been to village Hatnyaara near Waghad Dam. He had been to meet one Kacharu Gaikwad and he asked him whether he had employed any person. At that time, he saw the accused Ananda coming towards the house of Kacharu Gaikwad. Upon seeing P.W. 2 Ananda began to flee from the spot. Ananda was chased, however could not be accosted. Kacharu Gaikwad then informed P.W. 2 that he had engaged Ananda prior to 8 months and that Ananda was introduced to him by one Motiram who is the relative of Ananda. P.W. 2 alongwith relatives then went to Motiram. Upon seeing P.W. 2 Ananda began to flee from the spot. Ananda was chased, however could not be accosted. Kacharu Gaikwad then informed P.W. 2 that he had engaged Ananda prior to 8 months and that Ananda was introduced to him by one Motiram who is the relative of Ananda. P.W. 2 alongwith relatives then went to Motiram. Motiram could not answer any of the questions put forth by P.W. 2 in respect of missing of Suman. By then, the accused had left the house of Kacharu Gaikwad. P.W. 2 then went to his village. P.W. 2 then went to the house of Motiram alongwith his relatives. They found Ananda in the house of Motiram. They asked him about the whereabouts of Suman. Initially, he was not prepared to reply. However, P.W. 2 and the villagers thought it fit to threaten him of dire consequences and it worked. The accused then disclosed that he had killed Suman by throttling. P.W. 2 and the relatives brought the accused to Harsul Police Station. At the police station accused Ananda informed them that he had throttled Suman to death and buried her corpse near a nala near Dhulai hills. P.W. 2 then lodged a report at the police station and set the law into motion. The report is at Exh. 11. The accused then led them to the place where he had buried the corpse of Suman. The accused removed stones and the skeleton was there. Saree, blouse, her neckless and pieces of bangles were still on the skeleton. P.W. 2 identified the clothes and articles of Suman. From the colour of heirs also he identified that the skeleton is of Suman. P.W. 2 has identified the articles in the court. According to P.W. 2, his another son-in-law Rajaram was residing with him and cultivating his agricultural land as P.W. 2 did not have any son. According to P.W. 2 Rajaram used to talk to Suman and that had probably enraged Ananda. It is elicited in the cross-Talwalkar examination that Ananda is also related to him. Similarly, prosecution witnesses Mangalu, Raghunath are his relatives. The suggestions that he is deposing falsely are flatly denied by P.W. 2. 5. P.W. 3 Ganesh Magar is the panch for arrest panchanama of Ananda. The arrest panchanama is at Exh. 13. It is elicited in the cross-Talwalkar examination that Ananda is also related to him. Similarly, prosecution witnesses Mangalu, Raghunath are his relatives. The suggestions that he is deposing falsely are flatly denied by P.W. 2. 5. P.W. 3 Ganesh Magar is the panch for arrest panchanama of Ananda. The arrest panchanama is at Exh. 13. P.W. 3 had also accompanied the police and accused in the police jeep to the hills of Dhulai when the skeleton of deceased Suman was discovered at the instance of the accused. P.W. 3 has been declared hostile. 6. P.W. 4 Sonyabai Ughade is the wife of Mangalu Ughade. According to her, on one day before 12 months while she was returning home from her field, the accused and Suman met her. She had asked Suman where she was going and at that time Suman had disclosed that they are going to a hut. 7. P.W. 5 Mangalu Ughade is the husband of P.W. 4. Mother of deceased Suman is the sister of P.W. 5. He had helped P.W. 2 to search for Ananda and Suman. He had accompanied P.W. 2 to the field of Kacharu Gaikwad when the accused, upon seeing them had fled from the field of Kacharu. They had chased him but to no avail. The accused was found in the house of Motiram i.e. brother-in-law of the accused. The accused had made a disclosure statement in the presence of P.W. 5. He has denied all the suggestions about the falsity in his evidence. 8. P.W. 6 Iftekhar Shaikh is a panch for arrest panchanama. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W.7 Raghunath Ughade is the maternal uncle of deceased Suman. He had also accompanied P.W. 2 to various places and finally was present when the corpse of Suman was discovered at the instance of the accused Ananda. 10. P.W. 8 Dr. Abhijit Kulkarni had examined the bones of the skeleton, which was discovered at the instance of accused Ananda. He conducted tests on the said bones and arrived at the following conclusions : i) The bones of a human body. ii) The bones are of a female. iii) The age of female was about 20 to 25 years. iv) The lay may have height of about 143.07 cm. The report is at Exh. 24. 11. P.W. 9 Kacharu Gaikwad had engaged Ananda to work for him. ii) The bones are of a female. iii) The age of female was about 20 to 25 years. iv) The lay may have height of about 143.07 cm. The report is at Exh. 24. 11. P.W. 9 Kacharu Gaikwad had engaged Ananda to work for him. He has deposed that nobody had brought Ananda to his house. That the accused had not disclosed his name and therefore, he was referred to as "Pahuna". 12. P.W. 10 Kailash Pardeshi is the carrier of the bones for forensic tests. 13. P.W.11 Surendra Sonawane is the scribe of Exh. 11 that is the report lodged by P.W. 2. He has deposed before the Court about the steps taken by investigating agency in order to take the investigation to its logical ends. 14. The Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no cogent and consistent evidence against the appellant and that there is no evidence to show that deceased Suman was last seen alive in the company of accused Ananda. Upon perusal of the substantive evidence, we cannot consider the said submission in favour of the accused for the simple reason that P.W. 2 has candidly stated that Ananda had left his house in the company of Suman. Ananda and Suman had not reached the house of Dagu Bendkoli i.e. father of the accused and therefore, he had lodged a missing report which is at Exh. 8. The recitals of the report clearly show that Suman and her husband had been to the house of P.W. 2 and had not returned thereafter. P.W.4 Sonyabai had seen the accused in the company of deceased Suman and thereafter, Suman was not called of and therefore, it can be safely held that the prosecution has proved to the hilt that Suman was lastly seen alive in the company of accused Ananda. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the disclosure statement made by the accused to his father-in-law cannot be treated as an extra judicial confession as it was not a voluntary statement and secondly, the disclosure statement made by the accused at police station is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to Counsel the extra judicial confession was an extorted statement as a result of threat given to the accused by his father-in-law and his relatives. According to Counsel the extra judicial confession was an extorted statement as a result of threat given to the accused by his father-in-law and his relatives. It is clear from the record that the accused would not have disclosed the truth if he was not threatened. Even if the statement made before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the corpse of Suman was discovered at the instance of the accused Ananda. The fact that the location of the dead body of Suman was within the special knowledge of the accused Ananda, would be indicative of the fact that he is the perpetrator of crime. In any case, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was incumbent upon the accused to disclose about the whereabouts of Suman. The conduct of the accused can be considered under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. He had not returned to his house. The accused had not searched for his wife nor informed anybody that she was missing. An inference can safely be drawn that he had caused the death of his wife Suman and had further caused disappearance of evidence. 16. In view of the above mentioned facts, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant do not call for any interference. The conviction of the appellant is justified in the given facts of the case. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 17. Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellant is lodged and to the appellant-original accused. Writ of Order be expedited. 18. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate appointed from High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay to represent the appellant. We found that he had meticulously prepared the matter and he has very ably argued the matter. We quantify legal fees to be paid to him by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.2500/-. The said fees be paid to Advocate Mr. Sait within three months from today.