Judgment P.D. KODE, J. The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 24th March. 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No.176 of 2003, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. 2. According to prosecution, the appellant alongwith wife Archana and two sons Sujit and Ajit was residing at Boravale, Taluka Poladpur. Dist. Raigad. The appellant was often falling sick and used to quarrel with Archana on suspicion of herself having committed some sort of witchcraft upon him. 2.1 PW 1 Dnyaneshwar Kank is husband of Savita, sister of the appellant. He was working as Security Guard in 'Hycal Company' at Nangalwadi. On 8th May, 2003 at about 10.30 hrs. the appellant alongwith wife and children came to the house of PW 1. On the said day, at about 7.00 p.m. appellant quarreled with Archana by saying that he is again getting pains in the abdomen and upon suspicion that Archana has committed witchcraft started abusing her. He went for assaulting her by catching he throat. PW 1 then told him that since they were his guest, they should enjoy visit instead of quarreling with each other. PW 1 and Savita pacified the quarrel. PW 1 left the house at about 22.00 hours for attending night shift. The appellant, his wife and wife of PW 1 and the children were then at his house. 2.2 According to the prosecution, PW 1 returned at about 7.45 hrs. on 9th May Savita informed him that Archana after bath at about 7.00 a.m. went towards hill region of northern side of the village for answering call of nature and the appellant followed her. She told that the appellant just returned and told her that he murdered Archana by hitting stone upon her head when she had been for answering call of nature. On inquiry by PW 1, the appellant told him that he had killed Archana by hitting stone upon her head. PW 1 not believing it took the appellant alongwith him to ascertain if Archana had died and found herselflying dead in hilly region due to stone injury on her head. On inquiry by PW 1, the appellant told him that he had killed Archana by hitting stone upon her head. PW 1 not believing it took the appellant alongwith him to ascertain if Archana had died and found herselflying dead in hilly region due to stone injury on her head. After returning alongwith the appellant, PW 1 narrated the matters to his nephew Pravin also residing at Nangelwadi. Even after asking Pravin, the appellant reiterated of having killed Archana by hitting stone upon her head. PW 1 thereafter narrating such matters lodged First Information Report Exh.29 against the appellant with Mahad MIDC Police Station. On the basis of said Report at 10.35 hrs., crime No.21/2003 was registered at said Police Station. 2.3 The investigation of the said crime was carried by PW4 PSI Rupsingh Deore which included drawing of inquest panchanama (Exh.24), drawing of spot panchanama (Exh.25), collecting Postmortem Notes (Exh.32) prepared by PW3 Dr. Shivaji Pawar of autopsy of corpse carried by him at Primary Health Center, Birwadi Taluka Mahad sending of mudemaal articles to the Chemical Analyser and recording of statements of witnesses including father of deceased PW-2 Namdeo Balu Kadam. Dy. S.P. Pathak carried out further investigation in said crime and as a result of investigation, he charge-sheeted the appellant for having committed murder of wife Archana. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.21) framed against him by the Court of Sessions for the offence of committing murder of wife Archana, after the case was committed to the said Court. The prosecution examined in all above-referred four witnesses at the trial. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication. Significantly enough, the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., admitted that he had been to the house of PW 1 alongwith deceased Archana as guest. 4. The trial Court after assessment of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that Archana had met with homicidal death and the appellant had committed her murder by hitting stone upon her head and in-consonance with such finding arrived, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier. 5. Mr. Nitesh Nevshe, the learned appointed counsel for the appellant urged that there was no eye-witness to the crime in question. He urged that the trial Court rested the conviction upon circumstantial evidence. 5. Mr. Nitesh Nevshe, the learned appointed counsel for the appellant urged that there was no eye-witness to the crime in question. He urged that the trial Court rested the conviction upon circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel by meticulously taking us through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and making submission thereon urged, that the said evidence failed to establish the circumstances as otherwise erroneously concluded by the trial Court. He contended that the prosecution has failed to establish by cogent evidence, the circumstances relied by the trial Court. It was contended that the said circumstances does not form a complete chain establishing the guilt of the appellant. It was thus contended that the trial Court in such state of the prosecution evidence could not have arrived at the conclusion of the appellant being guilty for the murder of his wife and ought not have convicted and sentenced him. It was further contended that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder and as such he was entitled for benefit on the said count alone. It was urged that the trial Court overlooked said aspect while convicting and sentencing the appellant. It was urged that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court is not legally sustainable and be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted or at least be given benefit of doubt. 6. The learned APP Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh for the State on the other hand supported the judgment delivered by the trial Court by submitting that the trial Court has correctly concluded that the prosecution has established the circumstances relied by the trial Court and the said circumstances coupled with non-explanation regarding such in criminating circumstances on part of the appellant forms a formidable chain leading to sole inference of the guilt of the appellant. It was urged that reasoned judgment given by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and the appeal dehorse any merit be dismissed. 7. Thoughtful considerations were given by us to the submissions advanced by the rival parties and the record of the case was carefully examined for determining the substance, if any, in the submissions canvassed. 8. Now considering the 1st circumstance relied by the trial Court that Archana having met with homicidal death. The reference to the evidence of PW-3 Dr. 7. Thoughtful considerations were given by us to the submissions advanced by the rival parties and the record of the case was carefully examined for determining the substance, if any, in the submissions canvassed. 8. Now considering the 1st circumstance relied by the trial Court that Archana having met with homicidal death. The reference to the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Shivaji Pawar attached to Primary Health Center, Birwadi Taluka Mahad as Medical Officer reveals that on 9th May, 2003, around 12.45 p.m., the corpse of Archana was received at the said hospital and on the same day in between 2.15 p.m. and 3.15 p.m. he had performed postmortem examination. His evidence reveals that he had noticed following 3' external injuries on the said corpse: (i) Contusion lacerated wound of the size 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm present on forehead about left eye direction parallel to forehead, age - within 12 hours; (ii) Contused lacerated wound of 1 cm x 0.8 cm, present above right eye on forehead direction parallel to forehead, age- within 12 hours old blacking; And (iii) abrasion which is superficial of the size 3 cm x 3 cm on left elbow joint; According to Dr. Pawar, all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could have been caused within 12 hours from postmortem examination and the injuries were possible by hard and blunt object like stone. 8.1 His evidence further reveals that on internal examination, he noticed following injuries: (i) Bleeding under scalp present more on right side of fronto partial aspect of bone; (ii) Compression fracture present at left side of frontal bone which is compressed and on right side. It is elevated above 5 cm x 4 cm in dimension and bone pieces depressed inwards on left of frontal aspect; (iii) Both wings of spheriod bones are fractured; (iv) Covering of brain were found congested; And (v) On left side of frontal aspect brain tissues was found compressed and there is sub-dural haemotama present at occipital region of size 5 cm x 4 cm; It further reveals that said internal injuries were corresponding to both contused lacerated wounds described as external injuries and they could be caused by hard and blunt object like stone and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 8.2 PW-3 further deposed that the cause of death of deceased was "due to acute cardio respiratory arrest due to shock due to head injury and fracture base of skull and fracture frontal bone". He also vouched for correctness of Postmortem Notes (Exh.32) prepared by him of postmortem performed. 8.3 Thus considering the evidence of PW 3 in its entirety and particularly the cause of the death given by him, itself denotes the deceased having met with homicidal death. 8.4 In the same context considering the matters stated in the inquest panchanama (Exh.24) and scene of offence panchanama (Exh.25) and so also the relevant part of the evidence ofPW4, the same within themselves reveal the condition in which the corpse of Archana was found in hillock area in the forest known as 'Gujracha Kasu" and the situation prevailing at the said place. The bloodstained stone found at the said place and so also the blood spread is clearly indicates of violence having taken place at the said spot. The said matters are also found corroborated to some extent from the evidence of PW 1, who has also deposed regarding the condition in which he had found the dead body of Arch and at the said spot after the appellant has informed him that he has committed murder and he had taken the appellant alongwith him at the said spot. By the said aforesaid evidence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established the first circumstance under consideration. Needless to add, such conclusion is obvious as the said evidence excludes the death of Archana being for any other reason, i.e., natural, suicidal or accidental. 9. Now taking up 2nd circumstance relied by the trial Court, i.e., the appellant having made extrajudicial confession to PW 1 about his guilt of killing his wife Archana, the perusal of the evidence of PW 1 reveals that he had deposed inconsonance with the first information Report (Exh.29) promptly lodged by him. Without unnecessarily reciting each and every aspect from the said evidence, it can be safely said that amongst other, he deposed that after he has returned from nightshift duty in the morning, his disturbed wife told him that the appellant had killed Archana. It reveals that thereon he asked the appellant about it, and he told him that he has killed Archana. It reveals that thereon he asked the appellant about it, and he told him that he has killed Archana. It discloses that since PW 1 did not believe it, he asked the appellant took him to the place where he had killed Archana. It reveals that thereafter the appellant had taken him to the place in a forest where people go for answering call of nature. His evidence further reveals that at the said place, he had seen Archana lying dead on the ground with her back facing towards sky. It reveals that the appellant then had told him of having killed her with a stone. 10. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW 1, we find that no material was elicited during the cross-examination rendering his evidence and particularly that of making extra-judicial confession to PW 1 unbelievable. Significantly enough, PW 1 during the cross-examination replied that he was unable to tell whether the appellant was lunatic. The evidence of PW 1 considered as a whole indicates that he was most natural witness for the events occurred and deposed by him. It can be added that during examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., the appellant had not denied that he had been to the house of PW 1 as a guest on the relevant day. Further more the sequence in which the events had occurred, i.e., the appellant firstly reporting the matter to Savita, i.e., his sister, herself reporting it to PW 1, PW 1 thereafter questioning the appellant and the appellant making extra-judicial confession of his guilt to PW 1 denotes natural manner of occurring of such event. The occurrence of such event appears to be most probable considering the relationship of the appellant with Savita and so also PW 1. 11. Further more considering the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and further events happened thereafter also indicates the same being supported by the circumstantial evidence such as finding of dead body in hilly area, bloodstained stone being found at the spot. It is settled law regarding the extra judicial confession that in event of evidence pertaining to such confession is found inspiring confidence and the same is found further corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, then reliance can be placed upon such evidence for acting upon it. It is settled law regarding the extra judicial confession that in event of evidence pertaining to such confession is found inspiring confidence and the same is found further corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, then reliance can be placed upon such evidence for acting upon it. Having regard to the same, we are unable to find any worthy reason for not acting upon such natural evidence given by PW 1. The deposition of PW 1 does not reveal any reason of himself deposing falsely against the appellant and/or having any animous for implicating the appellant. In short, the prosecution by the evidence of PW 1 has duly established the circumstance No.2 under consideration. 12. In light of the discussion made in respect of two circumstances so far referred, it can be further added that the said discussion within itself reveal that the corpse of Arcnana was found at hilly area in the forest. It also establishes the 4th circumstance of bloodstained stone being found at the said place. Thus by such evidence, the prosecution has also established the 3rd and 4th circumstances, which are also corroborating the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 1. Though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to canvass that the stone being not before the Court, no weightage can be attached to the said circumstance. We do not find any circumstance in said submission canvassed, as the record reveals that the appellant during the course of trial has admitted the spot panchanama under which the said stone was seized. Needless to add that such submission cannot be entertained as the provisions of Section 58 of Evidence Act, which stipulates that no proof need be given of facts regarding admitted fact while that of Section 59 of the said Act stipulates that all facts, except the contents of document or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence. In the said context, further reference to C.A. Report Exh.36 reveals that human blood was found on the stone which was sent to C.A. by PW4. 13. Now considering 5th circumstance pertaining to the motive, the evidence of PW 1 reveals that during his evidence he has proved complaint Exh.29 lodged by him at MJDC MAHAD Police Station. He deposed that the contents of the said complaint are true and correct. 13. Now considering 5th circumstance pertaining to the motive, the evidence of PW 1 reveals that during his evidence he has proved complaint Exh.29 lodged by him at MJDC MAHAD Police Station. He deposed that the contents of the said complaint are true and correct. The said complaint reveals that the quarrel had occurred in between the appellant and Archana and the appellant then having rushed for assaulting Archana on suspicion that she had committed some sort of witchcraft upon him on 8th May in the house of PW 1. Further more the complaint also reveals that the appellant was entertaining such suspicion and used to quarrel on said count with Archana. 14. Additionally, the prosecution through the evidence of PW2 Namdeo Kadam, father of Archana has established that the appellant used to consume alcohol and ill treat Archana. It is indeed true that during the cross-examination, PW2 admitted Archana had not complained to him that her married life was unhappy. However, on the basis of said admission, earlier part of evidence of PW2 regarding ill-treatment cannot be said to be wiped out. Thus considering the said evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 in proper perspective the same leads to conclusion that thereby prosecution has established 5th circumstance of the appellant possessing motive for the commission of the crime. 15. With regard to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder the evidence of PW 4 reveals that at the time of incident he had not found that the appellant was lunatic. The learned counsel for the appellant beyond making reference to the paragraph No.11 of the judgment had not brought to our attention any other material on record indicating that the appellant at the time of incident in-question was suffering from any mental disorder. Even the perusal of examination of the appellant under section 313 of Cr. P.C. also does not reveal that the appellant has taken any such stand. The case regarding cross-examination made of prosecution witnesses is not different. It has not been brought to our notice any such suggestions given to any of the witnesses. Thus in absence of any record and the rationality of answers given by the appellant during his such examination militates against such submission canvassed. The case regarding cross-examination made of prosecution witnesses is not different. It has not been brought to our notice any such suggestions given to any of the witnesses. Thus in absence of any record and the rationality of answers given by the appellant during his such examination militates against such submission canvassed. Hence, we are unable to find any fault with the observations made by the trial Court in paragraph No.12 of the judgment of there being no material on record that the appellant suffering with any mental disorder at the time of the incident. 16. In the premises aforesaid and considering the circumstances established and particularly the circumstances pertaining to extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and non-explanation to any of said five incriminating circumstances constituting 6th circumstance, we find no fault of the trial Court in arriving to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant. We are of such considered opinion that such circumstances enlisted by us hereinabove are duly established by the prosecution and said circumstances within themselves forms a formidable chain leading to sole inference of the guilt of the appellant. Resultantly, we are unable to find any fault with the trial Court in convicting the appellant for murder of his wife and sentencing him as narrated earlier. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal hence, the appeal is dismissed. 17. Office to communicate this order to the concerned Prison Authorities and to the appellant who is in jail. 18. The fees of the learned appointed counsel is quantified at Rs.2200/-. Appeal dismissed.