JUDGMENT : P.N. Prakash, J. (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2018, in S.C.No.239 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.) 1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2018, in S.C.No.239 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, 2. The Trial Court framed two charges against Muthupandi (A1) and Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), as detailed below: Charge Penal Provisions Accused 1 302 and 201 I.P.C. Muthupandi (A1) 2 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) 3. By judgment and order dated 23.11.2018, the Trial Court acquitted Thangaselvi (A2) of the charge under Section 201 r/w 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced Muthupandi (A1), as detailed below:- Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 I.P. C. To undergo imprisonment for life Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months. 201 I.P.C. To undergo one (1) year rigorous imprisonment. Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month. 4. The prosecution case runs thus: 4.1 Raniammal (P.W.1) is a physically challenged lady with two daughters, Kanaga (deceased) and Karthiga (not examined). Her husband deserted her several years ago and so, as a single parent, she brought up her two daughters. She was residing in Ayyankovilpatti Village in Madurai District, with her two daughters and was a daily wager. 4.2 A few years ago, the appellant and Kanaga, who were in love with each other eloped, got married and worked in Ajantha brick kiln of Mohanraj (P.W.3) in Panayur Village. Kanaga was blessed with two daughters and a son. 4.3 While their family was in Panayur, the appellant developed intimacy with Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), which was resented by Kanaga. When the appellant started living with Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), Kanaga, along with her children, returned to her natal home in Ayyankovilpatti and she and her children were living with Raniammal (P.W.1). 4.4 Five days prior to lodging of the police complaint by Raniammal (P.W. 1), Kanaga left Ayyankovilpatti village saying that she is going to Panayur village to question her husband about his activities. Since Kanaga did not return for five days, her mother Raniammal (P.W.1) started looking over for her along with her brother Muniappan (P.W.4). 4.4 Five days prior to lodging of the police complaint by Raniammal (P.W. 1), Kanaga left Ayyankovilpatti village saying that she is going to Panayur village to question her husband about his activities. Since Kanaga did not return for five days, her mother Raniammal (P.W.1) started looking over for her along with her brother Muniappan (P.W.4). 4.5 They came to Ajantha brick kiln and enquired Mohanraj (P.W.3), who told her that on 04.02.2012, he had seen Kanaga quarrelling with her husband and so, he shouted at them and thereafter, he does not know anything about Kanaga. 4.6 Narrating all these facts, Raniammal (P.W.1) gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the police on 05.02.2012, in which, she and her brother Muniappan (P.W.4) have signed, based on which, Neethiraj (P.W.9), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Avaniyapuram Police Station Crime No.65 of 2012 at 21:00 hours and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P11). 4.6 Narrating all these facts, Raniammal (P.W.1) gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the police on 05.02.2012, in which, she and her brother Muniappan (P.W.4) have signed, based on which, Neethiraj (P.W.9), Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Avaniyapuram Police Station Crime No.65 of 2012 at 21:00 hours and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P11). 4.7 While the police were in search of Kanaga, on 06.02.2012, around 11.00 in the morning, the appellant surrendered before Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6), Village Administrative Officer of Panayur Village and gave a confession statement (Ex.P4) stating inter alia that after his first wife left him, he got married to Kanaga and thereafter, he married Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2); Kanaga and her children were living with his parents; on 04.02.2012, around 11.30 p.m., Kanaga came to his house in Panayur and quarrelled with him saying that she wants a decision this way or the other in the matter; as she was shouting, neighbours came to intervene and tried to pacify her, but in vain; after they left, around 2.30 a.m., Kanaga moved off his house with his third child; he followed her and snatched the child from her; Kanaga resisted; thinking that if Kanaga is left like that, she would spoil his peace, he strongly punched her on her throat, due to which, she fell down on the ground with the child; when he examined her, he found her dead; so, he took the child and left the child in his house, brought Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) to the place where Kanaga's body was lying; and together, they dug a pit in a bush near a mound, buried the body of Kanaga and returned home; since he was sleepless due to the incident and also thought that the police would soon nab him, he decided to come to Panayur Village and surrender, in order to avoid torture by the police. 4.8 Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6) V.A.O., recorded the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) which was given by the appellant and along with his report (Ex.P5), produced him before the Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station at 12.00 noon on 06.02.2012. Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10), Inspector of Police, received the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) and based on it, prepared an alteration report (Ex.P12), altering the case from one of “woman-missing” to Section 302 IPC, which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 3.00 p.m., on 06.02.2012 itself, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10), Inspector of Police, received the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) and based on it, prepared an alteration report (Ex.P12), altering the case from one of “woman-missing” to Section 302 IPC, which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 3.00 p.m., on 06.02.2012 itself, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. 4.9 Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10), Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, arrested the appellant at 2.00 p.m. on 06.02.2012 and recorded the police confession (Ex.P6). 4.10 In the police confession (Ex.P6), the appellant had inter alia stated that he would show the place where he has buried the body of his wife Kanaga and also the tools used by him for digging the pit. The said admissible portion has been marked as Ex.P6. Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10) sent information to the Tahsildar and also to the Forensic Science Department to send an expert to the village for collecting clue materials. 4.11 The appellant took the police party and the witnesses Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6) and his assistant Muthupandian to the brick kiln where they were joined by the Tahsildar and Meenakshi (P.W.11), Scientific Officer. The appellant showed the place where he caused the death of Kanaga, based on which, the police prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P7). Thereafter, the appellant took them to the place where he had buried his wife Kanaga. 4.12 Raniammal (P.W.1), the mother of Kanaga and Muniappan (P.W.4), the uncle of Kanaga, were also present there apart from other panchayatdars. In the presence of everyone, the place shown by the appellant was dug and the body of Kanaga was exhumed and Raniammal (P.W.1) and Muniappan (P.W.4) identified the dead body. 4.13 In the presence of panchayatdars, Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10) conducted inquest on the body of Kanaga and the inquest report has been marked as Ex.P13. On the advice of the forensic expert that the body could be sent to the hospital for postmortem, he despatched the body to the Government Hospital, Madurai, with a requisition for postmortem. 4.14 On the appellant showing the place where he had hidden the implements that were used for digging the pit, the police recovered a spade (M.O. 1) and a crowbar (M.O.2) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P9). Thereafter, the appellant was sent in judicial custody on the same day. 4.14 On the appellant showing the place where he had hidden the implements that were used for digging the pit, the police recovered a spade (M.O. 1) and a crowbar (M.O.2) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P9). Thereafter, the appellant was sent in judicial custody on the same day. 4.15 Dr.Natarajan (P.W.8) performed autopsy on the body of Kanaga and in his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P10), he has stated as follows:- “Appearances found at the postmortem: Decomposed body of a female aged about 23 years. Face, Chest, Abdomen are bloated. Eye balls and tongue are bulged out. Scalp hair comes off easily. Postmortem peeling and blebs of the skin noted all over the body in patches. Finger and toe nails are blue in colour. The following ante mortem injuries are noted on the body: 01. Abrasion measuring 4cm X 2 cm noted on outer aspect of right hand. On dissection of Scalp, Skull & Dura: Contusion scalp measuring 10 cm X 5 cm noted on mid occipital region. Brain pulpy in nature and blood tinched. On dissection of Neck: Contusion measuring 5 cm X 4 cm on right side of middle of neck noted. OTHER FINDINGS: Peritoneal cavity – contains 50 ml of mucosal fluid; Pleural cavities – contains 20 ml of decomposed fluid on each sides; Pericardium – contains 15 ml of decomposed fluid; Heart – flabby; Lungs – decomposed; Larynx & trachea – normal; Hyoid bone – intact; Stomach – contains 100 ml of decomposed fluid, with smell of decomposition, muscosa-decomposed; Liver, Spleen & Kidneys – decomposed; Small intestine – contains 20 ml of decomposed fluid, with smell of decomposition; mucosa – decomposed; Bladder – empty; Uterus – Normal, cut section empty; Brain – described in injury column;” 4.16 After receiving the viscera report, Dr.Natarajan (P.W.8) has given his final opinion as to the cause of death, which reads as under:- “FINAL OPINION: THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF MULTIPLE INJURIES 2-3 DAYS PRIOR TO POSTMORTEM” 4.17 Investigation was conducted by Umashankar (P.W.12), Inspector of Police, who recorded the statements of various witnesses and collected the reports from experts, completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.10 of 2013 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai, under Section 302, 201 r/w 302 IPC against Muthupandi (A1/appellant) and Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2). 4.18 On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session, Madurai, in S.C.No.239 of 2014 and was made over to the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, for trial. 4.19 The Trial Court framed charges against the accused, as stated in paragraph 2, supra. 4.20 When questioned, the accused pleaded "not guilty". To prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and 02 material objects. 4.21 When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied everything. No witness was examined from the side of the accused nor any document marked. 4.22 When questioned with regard to sentence, the appellant stated as follows:- IMAGE 4.23 The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by judgment and order dated 23.11.2018 in S.C.No.239 of 2014, acquitted Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), but convicted and sentenced Muthupandi (A1/appellant), as detailed in paragraph 3, supra. 4.24 Challenging the said conviction and sentence, Muthupandi (A1/appellant) has filed the present appeal. 4.25 Heard Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The prosecution has proved the following facts beyond a peradventure:- a) The deceased Kanaga was the daughter of Raniammal (P.W.1), niece of Muniappan (P.W.4) and wife of the appellant; b) Kanaga's death was a homicide. 6. The short question that falls for consideration of this Court in this appeal is, whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence. 7. Raniammal (P.W.1) and her younger brother Muniappan (P.W.4) have stated inter alia that Kanaga fell in love with the appellant, eloped with him, got married to him, settled in Panayur village, where they were working in a brick kiln; they have three children – two daughters and one son; while working there, the appellant developed intimacy with Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2), due to which, Kanaga used to quarrel with the appellant and come back to her parental home. 8. Raniammal (P.W.1) is a Dalit peasant and appears to know only to write her name in Tamil as her signature. Even according to her, she is an agricultural coolie. She was examined in chief on 28.01.2016. 8. Raniammal (P.W.1) is a Dalit peasant and appears to know only to write her name in Tamil as her signature. Even according to her, she is an agricultural coolie. She was examined in chief on 28.01.2016. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated inter alia that on 02.05.2012, Kanaga went to Panayur Village to see her husband and thereafter, she did not return home; so, she (P.W.1) went along with her younger brother Muniappan (P.W.4) to Ajantha brick kiln and met Sonai (P.W.2), the Watchman and enquired him; Sonai (P.W.2) told her that Kanaga came and had a quarrel with her husband and after that, he (P.W.2) does not know what happened; therefore, she went to the police station and gave a complaint (Ex.P1). 9. Raniammal (P.W.1) has further stated that the police informed her and asked her to come to Ajantha brick kiln and when she went there, they brought the appellant there and the appellant showed the place where he had buried Kanaga; when the police went from that place, they all saw the body of Kanaga and she identified her daughter. 10. Raniammal (P.W.1) was not cross-examined on 28.01.2016 and was recalled and cross-examined on 15.12.2016. Similarly, Muniappan (P.W.4), the younger brother of Raniammal (P.W.1), has substantially corroborated the evidence of Raniammal (P.W.1). The fact remains that these witnesses had not seen the occurrence, but, from their evidence, we are able to discern that Kanaga left her parental home saying that she is going to confront her husband and did not return home for several days. Hence, her mother Raniammal (P.W.1) and uncle Muniappan (P.W.4) went to Panayur village in search of Kanaga and unable to find her, they gave the complaint (Ex.P1) to the police, based on which, the police registered the case of “woman-missing”. 11. The breakthrough in this case came only when the appellant surrendered before Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6), V.A.O, and gave the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4). 12. Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian submitted that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and conviction cannot be based only on that. He also stated that Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6) was not known to the appellant and therefore, there is no good reason for the appellant to confess to Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6). 13. 12. Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian submitted that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and conviction cannot be based only on that. He also stated that Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6) was not known to the appellant and therefore, there is no good reason for the appellant to confess to Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6). 13. That there are judgments to the effect that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, is true, but, in Sivakumar v. State [ (2006) 1 SCC 714 ], the Supreme Court has clearly held that the confession made by a person to the Village Administrative Officer, which is an extra-judicial confession, can be relied upon and need not be discarded. 14. In this case, the defence had not made any serious dent in the testimony of Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6), V.A.O., who recorded the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) of the appellant and thereafter, produced him before the police. Just because the appellant is a stranger to Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6), that, by itself, would not be enough to vitiate the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4). 15. In this case, apart from the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4), the prosecution has adduced clinching evidence to show that the dead body was discovered only based on the showing of the place by the appellant. 16. Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian contended that in the admissible portion of the police confession (Ex.P6), the place where the body was kept buried should have been descriptively shown, but that has not been so shown and hence, the discovery of the dead body becomes suspect. 17. The law does not say that the information provided by the accused should be descriptive in all cases. In a case of this nature, where in the midnight, when the appellant has dug a pit and buried the dead body near a mount in an open place, there cannot be a vivid description of the topography by the accused. The relevant portion of the evidence of Muniappan (P.W.4) runs thus: IMAGE 18. In this case, we have the evidence of Raniammal (P.W.1), Sonai (P.W.2), Mohanraj (P.W.3), Muniappan (P.W.4), Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10) and Meenakshi (P.W.11), who have stated that the appellant took the police party to the place where he had buried the dead body of Kanaga and on his showing, the place was dug on the oral orders of the Tahsildar and the body of Kanaga was exhumed. 19. 19. Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian further contended that the non-examination of the Tahsildar is fatal to the prosecution case. To prove a fact, it is not the number of witnesses that matters, but the quality of the testimony. We have no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of Sethumanimadhavan (P.W.10), Inspector of Police, who took the services of the Revenue officials and Forensic expert in the exercise of discovering the dead body. All these witnesses have stated in unison that only on the appellant showing the place, the digging began. 20. Based on the stray statement of Raniammal (P.W.1) in the crossexamination that she saw the appellant in the police station on the 5th, the learned defence counsel contended that since the appellant came into the custody of the police on 5th, the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) given on 6th stood vitiated. 21. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we carefully perused the evidence of Raniammal (P.W.1). As stated by us above, Raniammal (P.W.1) is an illeterate Dalit peasant who was examined in chief on 28.01.2016 with regard to an incident that had taken place way back in February 2012. Even in her examination in chief, she has not given the dates on which she went to Panayur Village in search of her daughter and gave the police complaint. She was crossexamined only on 15.12.2016. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she saw the appellant in the police station on the 5th. While recording the cross-examination of Raniammal (P.W.1), the trial Judge has observed as under: IMAGE Free translation: “If asked whether it is the 2nd month, the witness thinks over.” This clearly shows that Raniammal (P.W.1) lacked the perception of date and time concept. 22. At this juncture, pertinent it is to advert to the oft-quoted passage of the Supreme Court that cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and a refined advocate [See State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 ]. 23. Even on a demurrer, if we keep aside the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) of the appellant, the discovery of the dead body of Kanaga on the showing of the place of burial by the appellant is an incriminating circumstance against him. The burden of proving a fact, which is especially within the knowledge of a person, is upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The burden of proving a fact, which is especially within the knowledge of a person, is upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to how he came to know that his wife's body was buried in the place that was identified by him. 24. Learned defence counsel submitted that around 200 people had gathered in that place and therefore, the offence could have been committed by any one of them. 25. In our countryside, when such incidents happen, it is natural for people to gather out of curiosity. Such curious onlookers cannot be implicated in the offence when there is overwhelming evidence against the accused. 26. Learned defence counsel contended that the appellant has shown three places to the police, as could be seen from the evidence of Muniappan (P.W. 4) and therefore, it is wrong to state that the appellant had taken the police straight to the place from where the dead body was exhumed. 27. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we carefully analysed the evidence of Muniappan (P.W.4). According to the prosecution, when the appellant was taken to the brick kiln, he first showed the place where he had assaulted Kanaga and caused her death and thereafter, he took the police and showed the place where he had buried the dead body. In this context, if we analyse the evidence of Muniappan (P.W.4), we find that he has clearly stated as follows:- IMAGE 28. That apart, the evidence of Ponkaleeswaran (P.W.6) is very clear. He has stated that the appellant first showed the place where he had murdered Kanaga and thereafter, he showed the place where he had buried Kanaga, which was 150 metres away from the former place. 29. Based on the final opinion given by Dr.Natarajan (P.W.8), learned defence counsel contended that the final opinion runs contrary to the extrajudicial confession (EX.P4), in that, in the extra-judicial confession (EX.P4), the appellant has stated that he gave one punch on the throat of Kanaga, whereas, the final opinion shows that she had died of multiple injuries. The postmortem certificate (Ex.P10) shows that the body of Kanaga was decomposed. The postmortem certificate (Ex.P10) shows that the body of Kanaga was decomposed. However, the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.10) shows the following injuries:- “On dissection of Neck: Contusion measuring 5 cm X 4 cm on right side of middle of neck noted.” This injury corroborates the statement of the appellant that he punched his wife on her throat, after which, she fell dead. 30. Finally, Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian contended that since Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) has been acquitted, motive has not been proved in this case. In this regard, he placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chattisgarh). 31. The case against Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) was that she had assisted the appellant in burying the body of Kanaga. Except the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) of the appellant, there was no other evidence to show that Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) had helped the appellant in burying the body of Kanaga. To be noted, a confession is a substantive piece of evidence against the maker and not against the co-accused. Therefore, Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) was acquitted by the trial Court. The motive for the offence in the case against the appellant is that he was having intimacy with Thangam @ Thangaselvi (A2) which was opposed by his wife Kanaga and so, she (Kanaga) quarrelled with him on that fateful night. The fact that she came to the brick kiln and quarrelled with the appellant has been proved through the evidence of Sonai (P.W.2) and Mohanraj (P.W.3). 32. To recapitulate, Raniammal (P.W.1) and Muniappan (P.W.4) had stated that Kanaga left home saying that she is going to Panayur to question her husband qua his intimacy with Thangam @ Thanga Selvi (A2). Sonai (P.W.2) and Mohanraj (P.W.3) have stated that they saw Kanaga and the appellant quarrelling in the night. Thereafter, Kanaga went missing. Her body was discovered based on the showing of the appellant. Therefore, Kanaga was last seen alive with the appellant by Sonai (P.W.2) and Mohanraj (P.W.3). Hence, it is for the appellant to explain as to where Kanaga went after the quarrel. Even in paragraph No.10 of the judgment in Nandu singh (cited supra) relied upon by the learned defence counsel, it is held as under: “10. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. Hence, it is for the appellant to explain as to where Kanaga went after the quarrel. Even in paragraph No.10 of the judgment in Nandu singh (cited supra) relied upon by the learned defence counsel, it is held as under: “10. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.” Therefore, on facts, we have no reason to hold that the prosecution has not proved the motive. 33. In the result, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 33.1 As a sequitur, the judgment and order dated 23.11.2018 in S.C.No. 239 of 2014, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, is upheld. 33.2 Suspension of sentence granted by this Court on 01.09.2020 in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3927 of 2020 stands cancelled. 33.3 Since the appellant is on bail, the respondent police is directed to secure the appellant and produce him before the Trial Court forthwith and to commit him to prison to serve out the period of sentence.