V. M. KANADE,J.

1. The appellant Shivaji Vasant Bagale has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, Sindhudurga, dated 13th December, 1990. By the said judgment and order the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-and in default in payment of fine to suffer further three months simple imprisonment. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts in nutshell are as under-

The deceased Sudha was residing at village Terse-Bambarde, taluka Kudal. She was wife of Arjun Puralkar who was residing in Mumbai. On 7-11-1988 deceased Sudha left her house to purchase food grains and other articles from the fair price shop at about 3.00 p.m. and after purchasing the required articles from the fair price shop, she went to the house of maternal uncle Ankush Daji Gawade (PW 6), had a cup of tea and left his place at about 5.30 p.m. However, she did not return home and therefore, efforts were made by her relatives to find her and a missing report was thereafter lodged at the police station. The said missing report was reduced into writing by the police and signature of PW 1 Govind Puralkar was obtained. Thereafter on the next day, again PW 1 who was brother of the husband of deceased Sudha along with others and while passing the place, called Rede Galli they found broken pieces of bangles and slippers of deceased Sudha and therefore information was given to the police. Soon after the police arrived at the spot and at that time Daji Gawade (PW 7) informed the police that Shivaji Bagale, the appellant herein, was seen on the previous night besides the bushes at Redegalli and accordingly, police went in search of Shivaji Bagale. He was arrested in presence of witnesses and police made inquiry with the accused and took search of his clothes and found a Mangalsutra. At that time the accused confessed that he had committed the murder of Sudha and thrown her dead body in a well and thereafter accused took them towards the well. Thereafter the dead body was recovered from the well. FIR was registered and thereafter sari of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused from another well. So also the articles such as the bag and the tin in which rationing articles were purchased by the deceased were recovered at his instance. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and closed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The trial court held that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. It was submitted that chain of circumstances on which reliance was placed by the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and there was a missing link in the prosecution case. It was submitted that the entire prosecution case was based on the extra judicial confession of the accused in presence of the witnesses when he was apprehended by the police and that as a result of the said confession before the police he had shown the place where the dead body was thrown in the well and the said dead body was recovered at his instance. It was submitted that the said extra judicial confession and the discovery which was made at the instance of the accused has to be discarded, being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Secondly, it was submitted that there were several discrepanci