JUDGMENT Suman Shyam, J. - The sole appellant in this case has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife and two minor children and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is that on 23/05/205 at about 10-30 p.m. the accused Supai Munda had killed his wife Boby Munda, son Raj Munda and daughter Rupali Munda by hacking them with a "mit dao". It appears from the record that soon after the incident, the accused had himself reached the Borgang Police Out Post and informed the Officer-in-charge that someone had killed his wife and two children and fled away. 3. Based on the information furnished by the accused, a G.D. entry was made by the Police, where-after, the Officer-in-Charge had come to the place of occurrence. On the next morning i.e. 24/05/2015, Shri Bijoy Munda i.e. the elder brother of the deceased Boby Munda had lodged an FIR before the Borgang Police Out Post alleging that the accused had killed his wife and his children by a "dao" and thereafter, approached the Borgang Police Out Post by making a false statement that some unknown miscreants had killed the trio. It is also mentioned in the ejahar dated 24/05/2015 that the accused, when questioned, had later on confessed to the killing of his wife, son and daughter. 4. Based on the ejahar dated 24/05/2014, Behali Police Station case No. 64/2015 was registered against the accused under section 302 of the IPC. S.I. Pradip Kumar Baruah took up the matter for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted charge sheet against the accused under section 302 of the IPC. The accused had pleaded not guilty. As such, the matter went up for trial. 5. On completion of trial, the learned trial Court had found the accused guilty of having murdered his wife and two children. It appears that the conclusion of the learned trial Court is primarily based on the extra judicial confession made by the accused admitting that he has killed his wife and children. 5. On completion of trial, the learned trial Court had found the accused guilty of having murdered his wife and two children. It appears that the conclusion of the learned trial Court is primarily based on the extra judicial confession made by the accused admitting that he has killed his wife and children. The learned trial Court had also taken note of the evidence brought on record, more particularly, the testimony of PWs 2, 4 and 5 as well as the seizure of "mit dao" by the I.O. on being led by the accused so as to conclude that the prosecution side had succeeded in proving the charge under section 302 of the IPC brought against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. We have heard Smt. R.D. Mozumdar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State. None has appeared for the informant. 7. Smt. Mozumdar submits that the extra judicial confession relied upon by the learned trial Court was made while the accused was in Police custody but not in presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, having regarding to the provision of section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, such confession according to Smt. Mozumdar, would be inadmissible evidence in the eye of law. It is also the submission of Smt. Mozumdar that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances so as to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, he be acquitted from the murder charge. 8. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP, Assam submits that the accused had confessed to the killing of his wife and children in presence of independent witnesses and the "mit dao" was also recovered by the Police on being led by the accused. As such, submits Mr. Baruah, under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the discovery of the "mit dao" would be a relevant fact which can be proved against the accused. Mr. Baruah has also argued that the accused has failed to offer any explanation as required under section 106 of the Evidence Act. Since the incident occurred inside his house, failure on the part of the accused to offer any explanation as to how the deceased persons had died, would be an important link to establish his guilt. Mr. Baruah has also argued that the accused has failed to offer any explanation as required under section 106 of the Evidence Act. Since the incident occurred inside his house, failure on the part of the accused to offer any explanation as to how the deceased persons had died, would be an important link to establish his guilt. On such argument, the learned APP has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 10. As noted above, the G.D entry was initially made by the Borgang police Out Post based on the information furnished by the accused himself stating that someone had killed his wife and children. We find from the evidence of PW-7 Shri Pradip Kr. Bora, who is the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of this case, that on receipt of information from the accused, he had made the G.D. entry and proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the accused person. After reaching the place of occurrence, he drew up the sketch map, recorded the statement of the witnesses and had also conducted inquest on the dead body and then sent the same for post mortem examination to Behali PHC. He then returned to the Police Station along with the accused Supia Munda and on interrogation, he had confessed to have killed his wife and two children. From the testimony of PW-7, it has also come out that the "dao" used by the accused was recovered from the drain of the tea garden on being led by the accused. The PW-7 has also stated that he had seized the "dao" by Ext. 2 seizure list after obtaining the signature of witnesses and there-after, arrested the accused person. On 25/05/2015, the accused was produced before the Court. The I.O. has stated that he had collected the post mortem report and upon completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused. PW-7 had proved the charge sheet Ext. 5. During his cross examination, PW-7 had deposed that at the time of recovery of the "dao", Sri Om Prakash Upadhyay (PW-2), Sri Binay Munda (PW-1), Sri Rubul Haldar and other persons were present with him. PW-7 had also stated that he had seen the door of the house of the accused was closed. 11. 5. During his cross examination, PW-7 had deposed that at the time of recovery of the "dao", Sri Om Prakash Upadhyay (PW-2), Sri Binay Munda (PW-1), Sri Rubul Haldar and other persons were present with him. PW-7 had also stated that he had seen the door of the house of the accused was closed. 11. Pw-1 Sri Binay Munda is the informant in this case and he has deposed that the accused was his brother-in-law. On the night of the occurrence, at about 11 p.m. Police had called and took him to the house of the accused where he saw the dead body of his sister, his niece and nephew. PW-1 has also stated that before he had reached the house of the accused, the accused person had surrendered before the Police Station. This witness has stated that the police has seized one "mit dao" from the Ketla Bagan which he had thrown in the tea garden on being shown by the accused. This witness had exhibited the material Ext. 2, which is the "mit dao". During his cross examination, PW-1 had stated that PW-5 Upen Tanti was the scribe of the FIR Ext. 1 lodged by him. 12. Pw-2 Sri Om Prakash Upadhyay is one of the seizure witness of the "mit dao" Ext. 2 and he has proved his signature Ext. 2(2) in the seizure list. This witness has deposed that at around 11 p.m. on 24/05/2015, Police had called him to the house of the accused. At that time, the accused was with the police. When he reached the house of the accused, he saw the dead body of the wife of the accused and the two children. PW-2 has stated that the accused had admitted in front of him and the Police that he has killed his wife and children. During his cross examination, PW-2 has stated that the accused person had admitted to the killing on suspicion. The witness had denied the suggestion made by the defence side that the accused did not admit his guilt before him. The testimony of this witness could not be shaken during his cross examination. 13. Pw-3 Sri Dilip Munda is the younger brother of the accused. He had come to know about the incident after the occurrence took place. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is not of much significance in this case. 14. The testimony of this witness could not be shaken during his cross examination. 13. Pw-3 Sri Dilip Munda is the younger brother of the accused. He had come to know about the incident after the occurrence took place. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is not of much significance in this case. 14. Pw- 4 Sri Gopal Das is another seizure witness and he had confirmed that the Ext. 2 is the seizure list of "mit dao" which was recovered by the Police from the "Nallah" (drain). This witness has deposed during his cross examination that as per the instruction of the Police he had asked the accused about the occurrence and the accused told him that he has killed his wife and children. PW-4 has further deposed that at that time, Om Prakash Upadhyay (PW-2) was present. He has denied the suggestion that the Police did not instruct him to ask the accused about the occurrence or that the accused did not admit his guilt before him. 15. Pw-5 Sri Upen Tanti is the scribe of the ejahar and he has deposed that on the night of the incident at about 11 p.m., PW-2 had asked him to remain present in the house of the accused person. Accordingly, he went there and saw Police and PW-2 present there. The police had opened the door of the house and saw that the wife and the children were lying dead on the ground. PW-5 had also stated that the accused person had told the Police in front of them that he had killed his wife and children. Thereafter, the Police took away the dead body for post mortem and also took the accused along with him. During his cross examination, the testimony of this witness had also remained unshaken. 16. Pw-6 Sidhu Munda has deposed that on the night of the incident, hearing "hullah" he went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the wife and children of the accused inside the house. 17. Dr. D. K. Bagchi was the doctor on duty at the Behali PHC on the date of occurrence and he had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Boby Monda, Raj Munda and Rupali Munda. The doctor was examined as PW-8. 17. Dr. D. K. Bagchi was the doctor on duty at the Behali PHC on the date of occurrence and he had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Boby Monda, Raj Munda and Rupali Munda. The doctor was examined as PW-8. The injuries suffered by the deceased persons, as emerging from the testimony of the doctor, is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- wxyz "1. Boby Munda:- zyxw wxyz One incised wound of size (7.5 x 5 x 3)" over left lateral aspect of neck at the level of certical-1 vertebrae cutting all the structures with cervical-1 vertebrae with posterior extension. Another incised wound of size (5 x 2 x 2.5)" over the right lateral aspect of the neck at the level of cervical-2 vertebrae with half cut injury of the spinal cord, sparing oesophagus and trachea. zyxw wxyz All the injuries found are ante mortem in nature. The death was due to cerebravascular accident as a result of the injuries sustained. Ext. 6 is the post-mortem report and Ext. 6(1) is my signature. zyxw wxyz 2. Rupali Munda : zyxw wxyz One incised wound of size (7 x 3 x 3)" extending from antero superior aspect of the left shoulder to the left lateral aspect of cervical-7 vertebrae cutting the mandible at the left mandibular angle. The cervical vessels were cut with the spinal cord at the level of cervical-7 vertebrae. Ext. -7 is the post-mortem report and Ext. 7(1) is my signature. zyxw wxyz All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the death was due to cerebra-vascular accident as a result of injuries sustained. zyxw wxyz 3. Raj Munda :- zyxw wxyz Incised wound of size (4.5 x 2.5 x 2)" over left side of neck extending from left angle of the mouth to the para-vertebral area. zyxw wxyz All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was due to cerebra-vascular accident as a result of the injuries sustained. Ext. 8 is the post-mortem report and Ext. 8(1) is my signature." zyxw 18. From the medical evidence brought on record, it is established beyond doubt that the deceased persons had suffered homicidal death due to cut injuries inflicted on their body and that all the injuries were ante-mortem. 19. Ext. 8 is the post-mortem report and Ext. 8(1) is my signature." zyxw 18. From the medical evidence brought on record, it is established beyond doubt that the deceased persons had suffered homicidal death due to cut injuries inflicted on their body and that all the injuries were ante-mortem. 19. Appreciation of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 leaves no room for doubt that the incident occurred at night and inside the house of the accused. It has also come out from the testimony of PW-7 that soon after the incident, the accused had himself reported the matter to the police. It is also evident from the testimony of PWs- 2 and 4 that the accused has confessed to killing his wife and children in presence of those witnesses. However, it also transpires from the testimony of PW-2 that such confession was made in presence of the Police. Therefore, the question that would arise for consideration of this Court is as to whether admissibility of such confession made by the accused in the presence of Police would be barred under section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 20. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. Section 25 reads as follows:- wxyz "25. Confession to police officer not to be proved - No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." Section 26 of the Evidence Act also creates a similar bar. Section 26 reads as follows:- zyxw wxyz "26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person." zyxw 21. A careful reading of both these provisions would go to show that the bar under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would come into play if any only if the confession is made by the accused either to a police officer or while in custody of the police officer but in absence of a Magistrate. 22. Let us now examine whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was admissible in evidence. 22. Let us now examine whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was admissible in evidence. As noted above, the police had come to the place of occurrence along with the accused after making the G.D. entry on the night of occurrence. From the evidence available on record, what transpires is that when the accused had come to the Police Outpost to report about the occurrence, he was neither treated as an accused nor was he arrested and that is possibly because the accused had informed the Police that "someone else" had killed his wife and children. It appears from the evidence on record that on the night of the incident, the police had reached the place of occurrence on being led by the accused. It is also apparent from the evidence of the PW-7 that after conducting the inquest and sending the dead bodies for post mortem examination the Officer-In charge had returned to the Police Station along with the accused and had interrogated him. On such interrogation, the accused had confessed to killing his wife and children and then he was arrested. The "dao" was later recovered from the drain. Therefore, the confession of the accused made to the police inside the Police Out post cannot be proved against him due to the bar created by section 25 of the Evidence Act. 23. However, it also transpires from the testimony of PW-2 that the accused had confessed to the killing his wife and children even before being brought to the Police Out Post, and while he was at his house i.e. the place of occurrence. The aforesaid statement of PW-2 finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-4 who had also clearly stated that on being asked about the occurrence, the accused had told him that he had killed his wife and children. It is to be noted that at that point of time the accused was not in the police custody but at his own house and evidence available on record goes to show that the movement of the accused was also not restricted till then. There is nothing on record to even remotely indicate that the presence of the Police at the place of occurrence had generated any fear or any kind of compulsion in the mind of the accused to make a confession. There is nothing on record to even remotely indicate that the presence of the Police at the place of occurrence had generated any fear or any kind of compulsion in the mind of the accused to make a confession. Rather, it appears that the accused had himself invited the police to his house. Therefore, in our opinion, the bar created under section 26 of the Evidence Act would not come in the way of proving the confession made by the accused to the PWs 2 and 4 at his house even though, there is evidence to suggest that at that time police was also present at that place. 24. We also find from the material on record that there was no pressure on the accused to make any confession before the other persons present in his house on the night of the occurrence and the confession made by the accused appears to be truthful and voluntary in nature. The fact that the "mit dao" had been recovered by the police on being led by the accused is admissible as evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and in this case, the said fact has been duly proved by the PW-7 who is the I.O. The recovery of the "dao" by the police on being shown by the accused also lends ample credence to the confession made by the accused. 25. Law is well settled that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. However, law is equally settled that extra-judicial confession, if found to be truthful and voluntarily made and is corroborated by other evidence, can be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of an accused. In the present case, as noted above, we find that there is due corroboration of the Extra-Judicial Confession made by the accused in presence of as many as 3 (three) witnesses viz. PW-2, 4 and 5. 26. In so far as the presence of PW-7 in the place of occurrence is concerned, as noted above, it appears that at that point of time the accused was not under the surveillance of the Police or in Police custody. PW-2, 4 and 5. 26. In so far as the presence of PW-7 in the place of occurrence is concerned, as noted above, it appears that at that point of time the accused was not under the surveillance of the Police or in Police custody. In the case of State of A.P. v Gangula Satya Murthy, (1997) 1 SCC 272 a question had arisen as to whether extra-judicial confession made by the accused before independent witnesses and later on reduced in writing in the police station would be admissible in evidence. In that case, the trial court had relied upon the extra-judicial confession of the accused made before two witnesses and convicted the accused. The High Court had set aside the conviction inter-alia on the ground that the extrajudicial confession was reduced to writing inside the police station and hence, was hit by section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. While reversing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court had made the following observation :- wxyz "19. The other reasoning based on Section 26 of the Evidence Act is also fallacious. It is true any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Act and that ban is further stretched through Section 26 to the confession made to any other person also if the confessor was then in police custody. Such ''custody'' need not necessarily be post-arrest custody. The word ''custody'' used in Section 26 is to be understood in a pragmatic sense. If any accused is within the ken of surveillance of the police during which his movements are restricted then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance for the purpose of the Section. If he makes any confession during that period to any person be he not a police officer, such confession would also be hedged within the banned contours outlined in Section 26 of the Evidence Act. zyxw wxyz 20. But the confession made by the respondent to PW-6 and PW-7 was not made while he was anywhere near the precincts of the police station or during the surveillance of the police. Though Ext. P-7 would have been recorded inside the police station its contents were disclosed long before they were reduced to writing. We are only concerned with the inculpatory statement which respondent had made to PW-6 and PW-7 before they took him to the police station. Though Ext. P-7 would have been recorded inside the police station its contents were disclosed long before they were reduced to writing. We are only concerned with the inculpatory statement which respondent had made to PW-6 and PW-7 before they took him to the police station. So the mere fact that the confession spoken to those witnesses was later put in black and white is no reason to cover it with the wrapper of inadmissibility. We find that the High Court has wrongly sidelined the extra judicial confession." zyxw 27. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of this case, we find that merely because the accused had subsequently confessed to his guilt before the police station, the confession made earlier before the independent witnesses i.e. PWs- 2, 4 and 5 cannot be said to be hit by section 26 of the Evidence Act 1872. 28. Having held as above, we also find that there is evidence on record to indicate that on the day of occurrence, there were only four persons including the accused living in the house. Out of them, 3 (three) persons, viz. the wife and two children of the accused had suffered fatal injuries leading to their death and the accused was the only person who did not suffer any injury. He then came to the Police Station and reported that some unknown miscreants had entered his house and grievously injured his wife, daughter and son by cutting them while he was sleeping with them. He has also stated that when attempts were made to cut him, he somehow escaped the place and he saw an unknown person fleeing away. However, although he had informed the police that his wife and children were injured, the fact remains that by that time, they were already dead. The fact that the accused had himself lead the police to the discovery of the "mit dao", which is the weapon of the crime, also goes to show that he had deliberately given false information to the police about the incident with a view to cover up the truth. 29. Since the accused was one of the four inmates of the house and his wife and children had died in his presence, it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the circumstances under which they had died. 29. Since the accused was one of the four inmates of the house and his wife and children had died in his presence, it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the circumstances under which they had died. But in the present case, the accused has failed to explain such circumstances and on the contrary he had made deliberate false statement before the Police by accusing some unknown miscreants of having killed his wife and children. As such, by applying the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 to the facts of this case , we are of the view that the failure on the part of the accused to truthfully explain the circumstances under which the incident took place would amount to an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Moreover, going by the conduct of the accused in resorting to deliberate falsehood before the police and also the recovery of the "dao" by the police upon his information are sufficient circumstances for this court to draw adverse presumption against the accused under section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1871. 30. For the reasons stated above, we find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the learned trial Court that the charge brought against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 31. This appeal is, therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. wxyz Send back the LCR. zyxw wxyz Before parting with the record, we would like to put on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Smt. Mozumdar, learned Amicus Curiae in this case and direct the Registry to make available to her, just remuneration for the services rendered, as per the notified rate. zyxw