JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI , J. 1. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated September 27, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Sessions Trial No.08 of 2021/Sessions Case No.04 of 2021 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which means imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life. PROSECUTION CASE 2. Prosecution case against the appellant is to the effect that on 06.03.2021 at 10.30 AM, appellant came running to one Sankar Mondal, member of Harinagar Gram Panchayat (PW-6) and told him that he has killed his wife and asked him to call the police. Sankar Mondal (PW-6) went to the house of the appellant and he found the latter’s wife lying in a pool of blood. He informed the police as well as the relations of the deceased. 3. Police officers came to the spot and recorded the statement of Sankar Mondal which was treated as First Information Report. Appellant was arrested from his house and on interrogation, he confessed his guilt and stated that he had kept the dagger (daw) in his house. Police took him to his residence and recovered the dagger. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant. During trial eighteen witnesses were examined and number of documents were exhibited. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge by impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant. ARGUMENTS AT THE BAR 4. Mr. D.Ilango, for the appellant contends that there is no direct evidence that the appellant murdered his wife. Motive to commit the crime has not been proved. Extra judicial confession to Sankar Mondal (PW-6) is improbable. Though it is the prosecution case, upon being informed by PW-6 around 10.45 AM police had arrived at the spot within 15 minutes, appellant was arrested much later at 4.00 PM. This improbabilises/essence of the appellant at the spot when police arrived. Signature of the witnesses on the disclosure statement is not proved and the daggar (daw) was recovered from Varandha which is accessible to all. This improbabilises/essence of the appellant at the spot when police arrived. Signature of the witnesses on the disclosure statement is not proved and the daggar (daw) was recovered from Varandha which is accessible to all. During examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, no question was put to him regarding the confession to IO leading to the recovery of weapon of offence. Hence, appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 5. Per contra Ms. A.S.Zinu submits that appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife who used to talk with his friend, Jeet Halder (PW-16). On the fateful day, appellant had a quarrel with his wife and stabbed her. Immediately thereafter, he confessed his guilt before Sankar Mondal (PW-6), a panchayat member. PW-6 intimated the matter to the police which was diarised – Ext.17. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and on his showing weapon of offence i.e. daw was recovered. Case is proved beyond doubt and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. EVIDENCE ON RECORD 6. Sankar Mondal (PW-6) is the most vital witness. He deposed on 06.03.2021, appellant came to his house and stated that he had murdered his wife and asked him to inform the police. Initially he could not believe the appellant. But when he went to his residence, he found that the body of appellant’s wife Suchitra lying in a pool of blood. He informed the police, police recorded his statement. He put his signature on the statement. He also made the statement before the magistrate. He proved his signature thereon. He also put his signature on the inquest report. His deposition remained unshaken during cross-examination. 7. Naresh Mondal (PW-10), Bhabesh Kumar Mondal (PW-11) and Rakhal Debnath (PW-12) are the relations of the deceased Suchitra. PW-10 is the father and PW-11 is the brother of the deceased Suchitra. PW-10 stated, he received information from Sankar Mandal (PW-6) over telephone. On receiving the information, he immediately rushed to the appellant’s residence. Appellant admitted to him that he killed his wife as he could not put up with her utterings. He went to the police station but was informed that the case has already been started. During cross-examination, he stated that he met with the police at house of the appellant. PW-11, brother of the deceased corroborated the PW-10. PW-12 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He went to the police station but was informed that the case has already been started. During cross-examination, he stated that he met with the police at house of the appellant. PW-11, brother of the deceased corroborated the PW-10. PW-12 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He signed on the handing over memo for post-mortem. 8. Dr.B.Ajit Kumar (PW-17) is the post-mortem doctor. He deposed, he held the post-mortem over the dead body of Suchitra Mridha. He opined death was due to combined effect of excessive bleeding from the cut injury of major blood vessels of the neck and complete section of spinal cord at the level of first cervical vertebra caused by a cut injury over the nape of neck by a sharp cutting weapon. He proved the post-mortem report – Ext.12. PW- 8 & 9 are Safaiworkers at hospital. The helped PW-17 to conduct post mortem examination and handed over blood samples and other articles to police. 9. Jeet Halder (PW-16) is a friend of the appellant. He deposed he knew the deceased as the wife of the appellant. He had given a separate number to her and used to have conversation with her. This was not known to the appellant. On the day of incident, appellant and the deceased had come to Mayabunder and they returned on the very day. After they returned, appellant had gone to field to bring animals. During the journey and after they returned, he was engaged in conversion with the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he had murdered her. 10. Suleman Beck (PW-13), M. Sudarsana Rao (PW-14) and SI Madhab Halder (PW-18) are the police officers. PW-13 deposed on 06.03.2021, he received a phone call at Police Station that someone had been murdered at Jaipur. He proceeded to Jaipur with PW-14 and Usha Pratima. Thereafter, Station House Officer of Billiground P.S, PW-18 came to the spot. Sankar Mondal (PW-6) made statement to them. They went to the house of the appellant. They found that the deceased lying on the floor in a pool of blood. PW-14, the other police officer corroborated PW-13. 11. PW-18 deposed he was posted as Station House Officer at Billiground PS. On 06.03.2021, he received information that the appellant had assaulted his wife with daw. He went to the spot and recorded the statement of Sankar Mondal- Ext-6/1. PW-14, the other police officer corroborated PW-13. 11. PW-18 deposed he was posted as Station House Officer at Billiground PS. On 06.03.2021, he received information that the appellant had assaulted his wife with daw. He went to the spot and recorded the statement of Sankar Mondal- Ext-6/1. He installed police guard and returned to Police Station where formal FIR was drawn up –Ext-13. Thereafter he took up investigation and visited the spot. He prepared site map. Photographs were taken of the spot by the photographer – Projit Das, PW-15. He arrested the appellant and seized two mobile phones and aadhaar card in presence of Saw James (PW-5) and Sukumar Mondal (PW- 7). He proved the seizure list – Ext.4/5. He held inquest over the body of the deceased. He proved the inquest report Ext.3/1. He took the appellant to the police station, recorded his confessional statement. To work out the confessional statement, he took the accused to his residence and the dagger(daw) was seized in presence of Sujit Mistry (PW-1) and Anup Biswas (PW-4). He proved the seizure list- Ext.1/2. He proved the certified copy of the G.D Entry -Ext.17. He submitted charge sheet. He proved the CSFL report- Ext-20. He identified the weapon of offence i.e. daw –material Exhibit-1/2. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CASES BASEDON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 12. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Supreme Court laid down the five golden principles with regard to cases based on circumstantial evidence. “1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 13. 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 13. Let us proceed to analyse the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principles to ascertain whether the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt or not on extra judicial confession. HOMICIDAL DEATH OF SUCHITRA, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT 14. On 06.03.2021, appellant rushed to PW-6, a neighbour and a member of the local gram panchayat and told him that he had murdered his wife. He also asked him to inform the police. PW-6 informed the police over telephone. Accordingly, PW-13 and PW-14, ASI, attached to Billiground Police Station came to the spot. Thereafter, SHO, Billiground Police Station (PW-18) also came to the spot. They went to the residence of the appellant and found that appellant’s wife lying dead in a pool of blood. Her body was taken to hospital where PW-17 conducted post-mortem with the assistance of E.Tata Rao (PW-8) & Tapash Biswas (PW-9). PW-17 proved post-mortem report –Ext.12. PW-17 deposed that the death of the deceased was due to combined effect of excessive bleeding from the cut injury of major blood vessel of the neck and complete section of spinal cord at the level of first cervical vertebra caused by a cut injury over the nape of neck by a sharp cutting weapon. 15. The aforesaid evidence leave no doubt in ones mind that Suchitra, wife of appellant had been murdered in the morning of 06.03.2021 at his residence with a sharp cutting weapon. EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION 16. PW-6 is a member of the local gram panchayat. His house is situated opposite to that of the appellant intervened by a road. On the fateful day, appellant rushed to PW-6 and informed the latter that he has murdered his wife. He also called upon PW-6 to inform the police. PW-6 informed the police, who came to the spot. 17. Mr. Ilango contends the prosecution case regarding extra judicial confession to PW-6 is improbable. PW-6 claimed police arrived at the spot within fifteen/twenty minutes but FIR was registered at 12.45 PM. He also called upon PW-6 to inform the police. PW-6 informed the police, who came to the spot. 17. Mr. Ilango contends the prosecution case regarding extra judicial confession to PW-6 is improbable. PW-6 claimed police arrived at the spot within fifteen/twenty minutes but FIR was registered at 12.45 PM. Moreover, appellant was arrested much later i.e. at 4.00 PM. This improbabilises the appellant’s presence at the spot when the police had arrived casting doubt with regard to the extra judicial confession made to PW-6. 18. Manner in which the incident unfolded after the murder has been succinctly proved by the prosecution. Around 10.30 AM on 06.03.2021, i.e soon after the incident appellant had came out of his house and informed PW-6 that he had murdered his wife and asked him to inform the police. PW-6 is a member of local panchayat and his house is situated just opposite to the appellant intervene by a road. In view of the prominent position held by PW-6 in the locality as a panchayat member and as his house is just opposite to that of the appellant. Appellant’s reposing faith on the witness and making the extra judicial confession is most probable. Fact that appellant made an extra judicial confession to PW-6 leading to the latter telephoning the police is proved by the general diary – Ext.-17 wherein it is recorded at 10.30 AM information was received from Sanker Mondal (PW-6) through his mobile number that the appellant had killed his wife with a daw. Soon thereafter, police officers PW-13 and PW-14 under the leadership of the Station House Officer (PW-18) came to the spot. Sanker Mondal’s statement was recorded which was taken to the police station and treated as First Information Report. Naturally all these activities took time and the FIR was recorded at 12.45 PM. 19. PW-6 had also informed the father of the deceased (PW-10) about the incident. Hearing the news, PW-10 along with his son (PW-11) came to the spot and saw the appellant in his house who again confessed his guilt to them. Their deposition corroborate the prosecution case that appellant was present at the spot and made confessional statement to PW-6 and others. 20. After recording the statement of PW-6, police officers left for the police station. Appellant remained at his residence and police guard was installed. Their deposition corroborate the prosecution case that appellant was present at the spot and made confessional statement to PW-6 and others. 20. After recording the statement of PW-6, police officers left for the police station. Appellant remained at his residence and police guard was installed. After registering FIR, PW-18 returned to the spot and commenced investigation. He prepared the site map, inquest report and arrested the appellant. 21. The aforesaid evidence on record explains the circumstances in which the appellant had made extra judicial confession to PW-6 immediately after the incident and the time gap between the confession and his arrest. Extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-6 was immediately after the incident and bereft of any tutoring undue influence or coercion. It can be safely relied upon to prove his guilt. RECOVERY OF WEAPON 22. After his arrest the appellant was taken to the police station and his statement was recorded in presence of PW-1 and PW-4. Investigating Officer (PW-18) has proved the disclosure statement Ext-15. To workout the disclosure statement, the appellant was taken to his residence and he brought out the blood stained dagger which was kept with other daggers. PW-1 and PW.4 have put their signature on the seizure list and proved their signatures in court. Mr.Ilango contends that the signatures of PW-1 and PW-4 on the confessional statement have not been proved. No question was put to the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to confessional statement to I.O leading to recovery of the weapon of offence. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contentions. PW.18’s deposition with regard to confessional statement leading recovery is corroborated by independent witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-4. Though their signatures on the confessional statement may not have been proved, but they deposed in court they were present at the police station where the confessional statement was recorded and also corroborated the recovery on the showing of the appellant. 23. Finally, it is also argued that the recovery was from verandah which is accessible to all. Evidence on record shows that the appellant had kept the weapon along with other daggers. He alone was aware which of the daggars was used to commit the crime. On his showing, the weapon was recovered. Recovered weapon of offence i.e. daw was produced in Court and identified by PW-18. Evidence on record shows that the appellant had kept the weapon along with other daggers. He alone was aware which of the daggars was used to commit the crime. On his showing, the weapon was recovered. Recovered weapon of offence i.e. daw was produced in Court and identified by PW-18. During examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, it was put to the appellant that has made confession leading to recovery of the daw in presence of PWs 1 & 4. Hence, it cannot be said that the aforesaid incriminating circumstance had not been put to the appellant during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. FORENSIC REPORT PW-18 seized blood stained wearing apparels of the appellant and deceased. The apparels and blood samples of deceased were sent for FSL examination. CFSL report (Ext.20) shows the blood stain on the appellant’s apparent matched with the DNA profile of the deceased. MOTIVE OF CRIME 24. Evidence has come on the record the deceased Suchitra used to talk with PW-16 who had given her a separate phone number not known to the appellant.. On the fateful day, the appellant had taken Suchitra to Mayabunder and had returned home. Thereafter he went out to bring the cattle back. Throughout the journey and after he had left to bring back cattle, Suchitra was talking to PW-16. This enraged the appellant and he struck his wife with a dagger at her neck resulting in a cut throat injury and leading to death. Thus, prosecution has been able to prove the motive to commit the crime. CONCLUSON: 25. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I hold the prosecution has proved the following circumstances which unerringly to the irresistible inference of guilt of the appellant: (a) Suchita, the deceased is the wife of the appellant. In the morning of 06.03.2021 her throat was cut with a daggar (daw) resulting in death at the appellant’s residence. (b) On the self same day at 10.30 am, the appellant came out from his residence and confessed his guilt to his neighbour and Panchayat Member (PW-6). Appellant also asked PW-6 to inform the police. PW-6 went to the house of the appellant and found body of deceased was lying in a pool of blood. (c) PW-10 and PW-11, father and brother of the deceased were also informed. Appellant also asked PW-6 to inform the police. PW-6 went to the house of the appellant and found body of deceased was lying in a pool of blood. (c) PW-10 and PW-11, father and brother of the deceased were also informed. When they came to the appellant’s house, they found the appellant in the house who confessed the guilt. (d) Police arrived at the spot and took the body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. PM Doctor (PW-18) deposed death was due to cut throat injury by a sharp cutting weapon. (e) Appellant made disclosure statement to I.O (PW-18) in presence of PW-1 & PW-4. Pursuant to the disclosure statement and on showing his showing weapon of offence, that is daggar(daw) was recovered. (f) Blood stained wearing apparels of the appellant matched with the DNA profile of the deceased. 26. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion, the prosecution has able to prove the case beyond doubt. 27. Conviction of the appellant are upheld. 28. On the issue of sentence, I note the trial judge quantified the life sentence awarded with the remark that it shall be for the remainder of the appellant’s life. Life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code is till the end of the natural life of the convict[ (1961) 3 SCR 440 ( Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )]. Trial Judge need not have emphasised this fact. In doing so, he created an impression that the appellant is deprived of his right to seek remission of sentence after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment under section 432 read with section 433-A of Cr.P.C. Trial Judge does not have jurisdiction to impose such embargo which is only reserved for the High Court or Supreme Court while converting a death sentence to one of life imprisonment. (See V.Sriharan[ 2016 (7) SCC 1 ( Union of India vs. V.Sriharan @ Muruganand )]). Accordingly, I modify the sentence and direct the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay of fine of Rs.10,000/- in default shall suffer imprisonment for one year more. 29. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 30. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 31. 29. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 30. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 31. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once. 32. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellants upon completion of all formalities. Joymalya Bagchi, J.-I agree.