JUDGMENT Kanchan Chakraborty, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of Mabud Mondal and directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2008 and 29.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Paschim Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. II/December/2005 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case no. 64 of 2005 thereby convicting the appellant Mabud Mondal under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- Appellant Mabud Mondal had two wives, Alezen Bibi and Saleha Bibi. Alezen Bibi, the first wife had been living in a room with her two sons while Saleha Bibi had been living in a separate room with the appellant Mabud. On 19.3.2005, Abdur Mondal, the youngest son of Alezen received an information from his neighbourer that his mother Alezen was murdered in her room and many neighbourers assembled there. He had been to the place of occurrence and found his father Mabud and step mother Saleha were repenting loudly for committing murder of Alezen. The appellant Mabud Mondal fled away from the village soon thereafter. Saleha Bibi confessed in presence of all that she had a quarrel with Mabud at the night of 18.3.2005 over supplying food to Alezen and thereafter, they together on 19.3.2005, entered into the room of Alezen. Saleha caught hold Alezen and Mabud slashed the neck of Alezen with a chopper. The above facts reported by Abadul Mondal in writing was treated as F.I.R. and on the basis of the same, Kotwali police station case no. 64 of 2005 dated 20.3.2005 was started. Saleha Bibi was arrested from the spot but the appellant Mabud Mondal could not be traced out. He surrendered in Court about three months after the incident, taken into custody and on the basis of his statement leading to discovery, the offending weapon i.e. Kateri was recovered from the room of the deceased Alezen Bibi which was kept beneath a heap of mud. The dead body of Alezen Bibi was subjected to post-mortem. The investigation into the case ended in a charge-sheet against Mabud Mondal and Saleha Mondal for committing murder of Alezen Bibi. They were arrayed to face the said charge under Section 302 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the trial commenced. The dead body of Alezen Bibi was subjected to post-mortem. The investigation into the case ended in a charge-sheet against Mabud Mondal and Saleha Mondal for committing murder of Alezen Bibi. They were arrayed to face the said charge under Section 302 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the trial commenced. The learned Trial Court recorded oral evidence of 19 prosecution witnesses and some documents, such as, inquest report, sketch map of the P.O., post-mortem report, seizure list etc. were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. The offending weapon i.e. the kateri was also produced in Court and marked material exhibit. The defense, on the other hand, examined four witnesses to prove the alibi that at the relevant period of time, the appellant Mabud was taking tea in the market when public attacked him for committing murder of Alezan and Mabud fled away. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record, found that the charge under Section 302 against accused Saleha Bibi was not established. Accordingly, she was acquitted. However, the learned Trial Court found the charge against the appellant was proved beyond doubt and recorded the order of his conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal. 2. There is no denial to the fact that death of Alezan was anti mortem and homicidal in nature. Her neck was slashed by a sharp cutting weapon and that was the cause of her death. There is no denial also to the fact that the alleged incident was not witnessed by any third person. The case is, to great extent, based on circumstantial evidence. 3. According to the prosecution case, the deceased Alezan had been residing in a room with her two sons while Saleha and appellant Mabud were residing in another room separately in a nearby house. At the relevant period of time, sons of deceased Alezan were not in their room and within vicinity. Both of them were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 and were declared hostile by the prosecution as they could not highlight the prosecution case in any manner. 4. Going by the judgment impugned we find that the learned Trial Court put much reliance on the evidence of local people who assembled at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident hearing alarm of Saleha. 4. Going by the judgment impugned we find that the learned Trial Court put much reliance on the evidence of local people who assembled at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident hearing alarm of Saleha. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 10, all local people, rushed to the place of occurrence hearing about the incident soon thereafter and found Saleha standing and shouting that Alezan was murdered by her husband. Amongst them, the P.W. 2 stated that he found Mabud to escape. He stated further that Saleha informed him and others that Mabud fled away after hitting Alezan with a chopper. That statement of P.W. 2 was supported by P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11. All of them found the dead body of Alezan on a ' Chatay' with bleeding injury on her neck. All of them heard Saleha stating that her husband killed Alezan with a chopper and fled away. 5. Mr. Minuti Goswami, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that this extra judicial confession of Saleha Bibi should not have been accepted and relied on. She contended that extra judicial confession by itself is a very week piece of evidence. It can only be used and relied on when the surrounding circumstances indicate sufficient proof of the guilt. In support of his contention, Smt. Goswami referred to a decision of Apex Court in Suresh Bhudermal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1625. 6. Mr. Debasish Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent State of West Bengal contended that in view of Section 30 of the evidence Act, confession of an accused is relevant and admissible against a co-accused if both had jointly faced the trial for same offence. 7. In our country, extra judicial confession are generally introduced in evidence only when there is no direct, cogent and reliable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. It is rarely that evidence of confession is adduced when proof of involvement of accused is otherwise satisfactory. 8. In the instant case, the appellant Mabud was found absconding for a considerable period of time. He surrendered in Court about three months after the incident and on the basis of his statement leading to discovery, the offending weapon i.e. the kateri was recovered under a seizure list in presence of witnesses. 9. 8. In the instant case, the appellant Mabud was found absconding for a considerable period of time. He surrendered in Court about three months after the incident and on the basis of his statement leading to discovery, the offending weapon i.e. the kateri was recovered under a seizure list in presence of witnesses. 9. The post occurrence conduct of the appellant is obviously suggesting that he had connection with the assassination of Alazen Bibi. Discovery of the offending weapon i.e. the kateri at his instance, when he was in police custody, three months after the incident, is also a fact to be taken into consideration as a fact connecting him with the assassination of Alezen Bibi. 10. There is no dispute as to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Court that while considering the reliability and acceptability of extra-judicial confession, it ought to be seen as to whether it is consistent with the rest of the circumstances which are either undisputed or satisfactorily proved. In Suresh Bhadermal Kalani (Supra,) the factual aspect was quite different than that of this case. In that case before the Hon'ble Court, the co-accused who made extra judicial confession was discharged. He did not face the trial. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court opined that confession of such an accused who was discharged before trial was commenced, was not admissible against a co-accused. In the instant case, Saleha Bibi and the appellant were charged under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Alezen Bibi. Both of them were tried together. In such a case, provision of Section 30 of the Evidence Act can be made applicable. Therefore, the statement confession made by Saleha in presence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 can be said to be relevant and admissible against appellant Mabud who was tried together with Saleha. Unfortunately, Saleha was acquitted from the charge as the learned Trial Court found itself not satisfied with the prosecution evidences against Saleha. 11. Unfortunately, Saleha was acquitted from the charge as the learned Trial Court found itself not satisfied with the prosecution evidences against Saleha. 11. In the instant case, the following circumstances are found so linked up together that they unmistakably lead to the only conclusion that none but the appellant Mabud committed the crime:- Firstly, Mabud was residing with his second wife in a separate room and it is found in the evidence that he and his second wife Saleha used to quarrel and fight over Alezan; Secondly, on the fateful date, there was none in the room of Alezan who was sleeping on a Chaity. There is no evidence that Saleha was away from her room situated adjacent to the room of Alezan; Thirdly, Saleha and Mabud shouted and attracted local people and repented for what they had done; Fourthly, Mabud left the place then and there and absconded; Sixthly, the Saleha confessed in presence of all the witnesses and in presence of the police official afterwards that the appellant slashed the neck of Alezan by kateri; Seventhly, the appellant Mabud led police to the room of Alezan and on the basis of his statement, the offending weapon, i.e., the kateri was recovered. 12. All these facts together completes the chain of circumstances and leads to the only conclusion that none but Mabud, might be with the help of Saleha, committed the offence. 13. Mrs. Goswami contended that Saleha was kept under lock and key by the local people before she was handed over to police. If so, her statement disclosing the commission of murder by appellant Mabud cannot be said to be voluntary one. She made that statement out of fear after being pressurized by public. 14. We have scanned the evidence on record minutely and found that before she was kept under lock and key by the public, she made the extra judicial confession before the P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11. It is also found that Saleha Bibi herself along with appellant Mabud attracted the attention of the local people and when the local people gathered on the scene, Saleha made the confession while the appellant escaped. Therefore, in our estimate, at that particular time there was no pressure on Saleha to make such statement or confession. 15. The P.W. 2 had seen Mabud to escape from the place of occurrence. Therefore, in our estimate, at that particular time there was no pressure on Saleha to make such statement or confession. 15. The P.W. 2 had seen Mabud to escape from the place of occurrence. The P.W. 11 described the situation in a batter manner. He stated that appellant Mabud fled away when he reached the place of occurrence. Saleha was found surrendered by people and she was stating that her husband struck Alezan with a Kateri when she caught hold her legs. Saleha was thereafter locked in another house in order to save herself from public assault. Thereafter, police was informed and in presence of police, Saleha again confessed that Mabud hit Alezan with a kateri while Saleha caught hold her legs. The evidence above shows clearly that Saleha was under no pressure or force to make such statement. She was confined in a room in order to save her from public outrage. It is not the case that she was locked in the room and force was applied on her to fetch out such type of admission. Saleha Bibi was an accused in the case. The charge under Section 302/ 34 of IPC was framed against her together with the appellant. She was, ultimately, found not guilty. She made confessional statement to the witnesses and not to the police. At the time she made such confessional statement, she was not in police custody. So, that statement of Saleha was not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and bar under Section 26 of the Evidence Act also would not apply. 16. The 'Kateri' recovered on the basis of statement of appellant leading to the discovery, was produced in Court and marked as material exhibit 2. It was shown to the Doctor, P.W. 14, who confirmed that such type of weapon could cause the injury found on the neck of Alezan. The seizure of 'kateri' was also proved by the independent witnesses. P.W. 15, a local man stated that police seized the chopper which was lying on the mud floor of the room of Alezen Bibi, in his presence. Mrs. Goswami contended that recovery of incriminating article i.e. the 'kateri' at the instance of the appellant cannot be said to be reliable because the place wherefrom it was recovered was accessible to all. In support of her contention, Mrs. Mrs. Goswami contended that recovery of incriminating article i.e. the 'kateri' at the instance of the appellant cannot be said to be reliable because the place wherefrom it was recovered was accessible to all. In support of her contention, Mrs. Goswami relied on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007) to SCC (Cri) 162. 17. We are not impressed at all by such a proposition of Mrs. Goswami. The place wherefrom the offending weapon was recovered at the instance of the appellant was not an open place but dwelling room of the deceased and her two sons. There was no case to the effect that after death of Alezen Bibi, the room was left vacant. There was no case also to the effect that the offending weapon was planted in the room in order to fasten the appellant with the crime. At least, we do not find any such evidence to that effect. In State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran (Supra) the fact before the Hon'ble Court and that of this case are quite different. In the case before the Hon'ble Court the recovery of incriminating article was done during second search, identification of the articles was not found reliable, identification of the accused in the T.I. Parade was found doubtful and there was possibility of two views. In the instant case, the offending weapon was recovered from the room of the deceased three months after her murder, at the instance of the appellant. The room was not left vacant or accessible to anyone even after death of Alezen Bibi. Her sons had been residing therein after her death. The seizure of the chopper has been established properly by oral as well as documentary evidence. The statement leading to the discovery (Exhibit 8) leaves no room of doubt that the said statement was not free from any element of compulsion. The learned Trial Court accepted only that part of the statement which related distinctly to a fact which was not disclosed earlier to the police or to anybody. Said disclosure of the fact resulting in recovery of the offending weapon, has fulfilled the conditions for utilizing the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 18. Mrs. Goswami contended that the Doctor who conducted post-mortem, detected more than one injury on the body of the deceased. Said disclosure of the fact resulting in recovery of the offending weapon, has fulfilled the conditions for utilizing the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 18. Mrs. Goswami contended that the Doctor who conducted post-mortem, detected more than one injury on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem i.e. exhibit shows that the following injuries were detected at the time of post-mortem:- a) One incised injury 2.3" x 0.8" x bone deep over right parital region. b) One incised injury 1" x 0.4" x muscle deep over right side of the face in front of right tragus. c) One incised injury 0.5' x 0.4" x muscle deep over right tragus. d) Defused Hematoma over soft tissue on the scalp and e) Extra Durul and sub-Durul Hematoma over Dorsolaterial surface on soft Hemispheres on brain with laceration. 19. We have carefully gone through the evidence of Dr. Laxmi Kanta Ghosh (P.W. 14) and found that he stated categorically that all the injuries showed by visual reaching of the incised injury on clear cut marks. In other words, the injury no. 1 was the fatal blow which caused the other injuries which were detected by the Doctor at the time of post mortem. To be stated preciously, hitting with a chopper on the neck caused the incised injury no. 1 and consequently caused the other injuries. Therefore, in our view, this discrepancy brought to our notice by Mrs. Goswami is insignificant. 20. Mrs. Goswami contended further that the offending weapon was not stained with blood and it was not sent for chemical examination. It is true that this omission on the part of investigation would have been a fatal one had there been no other evidence of recovery and seizure of the same. We are not oblivious of the fact that the offending weapon was recovered from a heap of mud three months after the incident. Therefore, there was no possibility of getting stain of blood on the said chopper. We are not sure also what would have been the actual result of chemical examination of same after such a long period. We, therefore, do not like to put much importance on this point. "No chemical examination-no conviction"-cannot be a rule of law because it is, by itself, against the principle of law. 21. We are not sure also what would have been the actual result of chemical examination of same after such a long period. We, therefore, do not like to put much importance on this point. "No chemical examination-no conviction"-cannot be a rule of law because it is, by itself, against the principle of law. 21. Turning to the judgment impugned, we find that the learned Trial Court considered the case from all possible angles and found itself satisfied that there was a complete chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that appellant Mahmud Mondal murdered his first wife Alezen Bibi by a sharp cutting weapon like kateri/chopper on 19.3.2005. We found ourselves in agreement with that view of learned Trial Court and, accordingly, uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant. 22. In the conspectus of the discussion above, the appeal fails and it is disposed of. 23. We have failed to resist ourselves to express our dissatisfaction as to the manner in which the learned Trial Court exonerated Saleha Bibi from the charge. In our opinion, there are sufficient evidence on record to connect Saleha Bibi with the alleged crime. Saleha Bibi, in order to prove her innocence, made statement to the witnesses that appellant Mabud hit Alezan with the Chopper. Subsequently, when she was interrogated, she confessed that while Mabud hit Alezan with Chopper, she caught hold the legs of Alezan. Saleha Bibi and Mabud were found shouting and repainting immediately after the incident. The extra judicial confession made by her could have well been used against her by the learned Trail Court. However, the incident had taken place long back in the year 2005 and learned Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against Saleha Bibi. We, therefore, do not like to interfere into that finding of the Court but with a note of dissatisfaction. Let a copy of judgment together with the L.C.R. be sent to the learned Trial Court.