JUDGMENT : Jay Sengupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.03.2010 and sentence dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial Case No. 57/September/2006, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years more for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and to suffer two years’ simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 2. On 15.05.2006 at about 10.45 hours, PW 2 lodged a First Information Report that on 15.05.2006 at about 2.00 hours, the appellant, who happened to be the brother-in-law of his sister Sujata, struck severe blows on the heads of PW 2’s said sister Sujata and her mother-in-law Bishnupriya with a sharp weapon, killed them, dumped the bodies in a pond and fled away. After sometime the appellant consumed something like a poison and was found lying unconscious in a village field. PW 2 had heard all these from a person residing nearby. 3. The investigation commenced. PW 14, a Sub-Inspector of Police, held inquest over the two dead bodies on 15.05.2006 at about 12.15 hours in the presence of witnesses PWs 2, 5, 6 and 7. The witnesses took the name of the appellant as the assailant. On 16.05.2006 at about 16.10 hours PW 13, the autopsy surgeon, held a post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased Sujata Sahoo. He found fracture of skull and internal haemorrhage. According to him, the injury was homicidal and might have been caused by moderately heavy sharp edged wooden bar/bat. He held the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Bishnupriya on 16.05.2006 at about 16.40 hours and found similar injuries. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. On 06.01.2007 charges were framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. 4. In the course of trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish its case. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. On 06.01.2007 charges were framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. 4. In the course of trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish its case. On the other hand, besides denying his culpability under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant presented himself as defence witness. 5. From a careful perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that PW 1 was the uncle of the de facto complainant. He was a post-occurrence witness and a witness to the inquest. He deposed that the appellant was found unconscious in a village field. PW 2 was the de facto complainant of the case. He was the brother of the victim Sujata Sahoo. He came to know about the incident after a neighbour of the victims informed him. Besides being a post-occurrence witness, he was also a witness to the inquest. He heard that the appellant was lying unconscious in a place. He heard the villagers saying that the appellant might have killed the victims. PW 3 was the wife of another brother of the appellant. She was a post occurrence witness. The two dead bodies were found in a pond. She deposed that on the previous night the father-in-law had gone to see a play. She was declared hostile. PW 4 was the wife of the appellant’s elder brother. She stated that when police came, the accused was absent. She too was declared hostile. PW 5 was a distant relative of the victim Sujata Sahoo. As a post-occurrence witness, he did not find the accused home. When he went there he found the dead bodies lying in the water of a tank near the house. He was a seizure list witness for the trouser seized from the kitchen stained with some moss of the pond. He was also a witness to the inquest as also a witness to the recovery of the wooden bar/bat pursuant to a statement of the accused. He scribed the First Information Report lodged by PW 2. In his cross-examination, PW 5 admitted that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. PW 6 was a Gram Panchayat member and a post-occurrence witness. The appellant was found unconscious in a field. He informed the police. He scribed the First Information Report lodged by PW 2. In his cross-examination, PW 5 admitted that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. PW 6 was a Gram Panchayat member and a post-occurrence witness. The appellant was found unconscious in a field. He informed the police. He was a witness to the inquest as also a witness to the seizure of a trouser and a white shirt found in the kitchen. The appellant was admitted in a hospital. He stated that his signature was taken on a blank paper and then he was declared hostile. PW 7 was a local post-occurrence witness. After hearing the cries of PW 8, he saw the two dead bodies floating in a pond. Marks of injuries were present on the dead bodies. He heard that the appellant was lying unconscious in a place. He was a witness to the inquest and to the seizure of a trouser. He also signed some paper brought by the police two or three days later although nothing was seized then. He was declared hostile. But he admitted his signature on a label. PW 8 was the father of the appellant. He went to see a play on the previous night. On that night the wives of two sons, the wife of his third son and the appellant were all present in the house. The other two sons Uttam and Anupam were also there in the house. When he knocked at the door of his house, his daughter-in-law Madhumita opened the door. By the time he went to sleep, his wife and the victim Sujata did not come back from the play. In the early next morning the said Madhumita called him from outside. He went and saw the dead bodies of his wife and the victim Sujata lying in the pond. The dead bodies were brought out. Several injuries were found on the two dead bodies. The Panchayat members and others were called. Thereafter the appellant was found unconscious in a faraway field. He was a signatory to the seizure list for an aluminum container. When he stated that he could not say who murdered the victims, he was declared hostile. PW 9 was a son of the victim Bishnupriya. PW 10 was tendered in evidence. PW 11 was the Learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 164 of the Code. When he stated that he could not say who murdered the victims, he was declared hostile. PW 9 was a son of the victim Bishnupriya. PW 10 was tendered in evidence. PW 11 was the Learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 164 of the Code. PW 12 was the elder brother of the appellant and the husband of the victim Sujata Sahoo. He was at Chandannagar, his work place, at the date of occurrence. He was declared hostile. PW 13 was the post-mortem doctor. He found that the dead bodies were highly decomposed. He found a cut wound and a fracture on the skull of the victim Sujata. The death was homicidal and could have been caused by a heavy sharp edged wooden bat. The dead body of the other victim Bishnupriya was also in a highly decomposed state. It had cut wound and a fracture of the skull. According to PW 13, the death was homicidal. PW 14 was the Investigating Officer of the case. He arrested the accused from a hospital. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant did not say about consuming poison and retracted his confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code. He stated that he was made to sign on a blank paper. As DW 1, the appellant reiterated the stand taken under Section 313 of the Code. He could not remember about the play. He tried to explain the issue of poisoning at the end. 6. Mr. Mainak Bakshi, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted as follows. The place of occurrence could not be fixed as no blood stained earth, etc. could be collected. The case was based purely on circumstantial evidence and a number of witnesses turned hostile. Yet, all the witnesses, even the hostile ones, stated that the appellant was found in a semiconscious state at a different place. No material exhibit was produced in Court. The container of pesticide was not sent for forensic examination. Some witnesses to the seizure deposed that they signed on blank papers. Even the doctors who treated the appellant for poisoning were not produced as witnesses. As regards the sequence of events, even PW 3 deposed that the appellant had gone to watch the play. Later on, she was declared hostile. Some witnesses to the seizure deposed that they signed on blank papers. Even the doctors who treated the appellant for poisoning were not produced as witnesses. As regards the sequence of events, even PW 3 deposed that the appellant had gone to watch the play. Later on, she was declared hostile. PWs 3, 5 and 7 did not find the appellant in the house after the incident. On the other hand, PWs 8 and 9 said that the appellant was in the house. A mere retracted confession should not be the basis of a conviction, especially when there is no independent corroboration of the same. Besides, there were some over writings on the post-mortem reports. There was no explanation about how an inference could be drawn that the injuries were caused by a wooden bat. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the accused clearly stated that he was tortured by the police. Therefore, there was no cogent material to connect the appellant with the alleged crimes. 7. Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submitted as follows. The appellant was arrested on 22.05.2006 and his statement under Section 164 of the Code was recorded promptly on 24.05.2006. Sufficient time was given for reflection and necessary cautions were also given. It was only on 02.06.2009 that the appellant first prayed for retracting his confession. Effectively, the retraction took place nearly after three years and two months. It is settled law that if found voluntary and true, a judicial confession can be the sole basis of a conviction. Two things came out from the statement under Section 164 of the Code - the motive behind the murder and how the murder was committed. No cogent reason was cited for which the appellant’s statement under Section 164 of the Code could be disbelieved. The defence case that the appellant might have been intercepted by some others and assaulted had no legs to stand. The medical documents, kept with the records, showed that there was no assault, but only poisoning. A false plea of alibi taken by the appellant would act as an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards his guilt. The opinion of the post-mortem doctor about the possibility of the injuries being caused by a wooden bat cannot be faulted with. A false plea of alibi taken by the appellant would act as an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards his guilt. The opinion of the post-mortem doctor about the possibility of the injuries being caused by a wooden bat cannot be faulted with. Moreover, there was recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant. The motive to murder emerging out of an illicit relation supported the prosecution case in good measure. The prosecution was thus able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. We heard the submissions of the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and the State and perused the evidence and other materials on record as also a copy of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Motive: 9. The motive behind the murder clearly comes out from the confessional statement of the appellant recorded under Section 164 of the Code. The appellant desperately wanted to have a physical relation with his sister-in-law Sujata Sahoo. When she denied the same the accused committed her murder for non-satisfaction of his lust. It was further revealed from the said statements that since his mother tried to come in the way, the appellant also committed her murder out of grudge. These were utterly despicable acts allegedly committed by a person who choose to break of all barriers of law, morality and propriety. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, such motive is of prime importance. The appellant and the victims stayed at the same place: 10. There is evidence in abundance to prove that the appellant and the two victims stayed at the same premises. Some of the family members had gone to watch a play. But there is no evidence to preclude the possibility that immediately before the occurrence the appellant and the victims could have been there at the same place, whether inside the house or outside near the place of occurrence. The dead bodies of the two victims were found in a nearby pond: 11. In the early morning after the incident several witnesses including PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 found the dead body lying in a pond near the house. Marks of injuries were clearly visible on the dead bodies. The appellant was found unconscious in a village field: 12. In the early morning after the incident several witnesses including PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 found the dead body lying in a pond near the house. Marks of injuries were clearly visible on the dead bodies. The appellant was found unconscious in a village field: 12. After the dead bodies were detected, the appellant was also found lying unconscious in a village field. A foam was coming out from his mouth. A container of poison was lying by his side. He was immediately removed to hospital. Retracted judicial confession: 13. The appellant was arrested on 22.05.2006 and his statement under Section 164 of the Code was recorded on 24.05.2006. Sufficient time was given to him for reflection. Necessary cautions were also given. The contents of the confessional statement gave out a gory, yet convincing account of what happened to the two victims. It also came out that out of repentance, the appellant consumed poison. In a stark contrast to the promptitude with which the appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code, it was only on 02.06.2009, nearly after three years, that the appellant choose to file an application to retract his confession. It is trite law that if it is found convincing, a judicial confession can be acted upon. In Alok Nath Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230 the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, held that a judicial confession which is retracted by the maker can still be acted upon but not without a corroboration from an independent quarter. In this case the retraction is belated and seemingly an after thought. Nonetheless, one has to look for a corroboration from an independent source if one chooses to rely on the said confession. Recovery of the offending weapon: 14. The offending weapon being a wooden bat/bar was seized from a pond by the Investigating Officer after being shown by the appellant. Out of the three seizure list witnesses, PWs 5 supported the recovery made at the instance of the appellant while PW 6 (hostile) stated about signing a blank paper and PW 7 (hostile) only admitted his signature on the label pasted on the bar although he did not support the recovery. The seizure list also contained the signature of the appellant. But the appellant subsequently claimed that his signature was forcibly taken on some blank paper. The seizure list also contained the signature of the appellant. But the appellant subsequently claimed that his signature was forcibly taken on some blank paper. The Investigating Officer was not cross-examined on this. Besides, if two different persons claim that they separately signed on a blank paper and their signatures are ultimately found on the same document, then their claims would be viewed with suspicion as after one of them signs on the paper, the same does not remain blank any more. Be that as it may, PW 5 clearly proved the seizure of the offending weapon. He also deposed that PWs 6 and 7 were present during seizure. Even if the rigors of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not fulfilled in the present case, the recovery of the offending weapon at the instance of the appellant would nevertheless be admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Medical evidence: 15. PW 13, the autopsy surgeon, found severe injuries on the two dead bodies although both the bodies were highly decomposed. According to him, the injuries were homicidal in nature and could be caused if the victims were assaulted with a wooden bat. The cross-examination of this witness was declined by the defence. His evidence clearly supported the prosecution case. The alternative presented by the defence: 16. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code the appellant did not say about consuming poison. In his evidence, he desperately tried to explain the issue at the end, but failed miserably. His claim that he was roughed up by some others did not find any physical corroboration. A false plea like this can, at best, act as an additional link in the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant. 17. Considering the existence of a motive behind the murder, the circumstantial evidence regarding discovery of the dead bodies and finding of the appellant unconscious in a village field, the judicial confession made by the appellant though retracted belatedly, the recovery of the offending weapon and the supporting medical evidence, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 19. 18. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 19. A copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court records shall be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith by a Special Messenger for information and necessary action. 20. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J)- I agree