By Court: - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2003 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2003 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2001, whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of her husband Bamia Sundi and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The case of prosecution lies in a narrow compass. It is stated that on 04.07.2000, informant received information from the Village Dakua that his son Bamia Sundi had been killed in his in-laws house. Thereafter, he went there and found the dead body of his son in front of the door of his in-laws house. It is also stated that wife of deceased namely Basi Deogam (appellant) was sitting by the side of dead body. On query, she disclosed that she killed the deceased. It is further stated that Village Munda also arrived at the place of occurrence. Thereafter informant (P.W.-1) went to the police station along with Village Munda (P.W.-2) and Dakua and informed the police about the occurrence.

3. On the basis of aforesaid information, Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No. 48 of 2000 dated 04.07.2000 instituted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and police took up investigation. During investigation, police prepared Inquest Report. Thereafter sent the dead body of deceased for post-mortem examination. It also appears that in course of investigation, police seized an axe and prepared Production – cum -seizure list (Ext.-5). The Investigating Officer (I.O.), after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance taken and the case committed to the court of Sessions for trial.

4. After receiving the record, the present Sessions Trial instituted and the case record transferred in the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa for trial, who vide order dated 21st June, 2001 framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C., to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined altogether five (05) witnesses. The prosecution also brought on record written report (Ext.-1), Inquest Report (Ext.-4), Production-cum-Seizure List (Ext.-5) and Post-mortem Report (Ext.-6) in support of its case. After close of the case of prosecution, the statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which her defence is of total denial. The learned court below after considering the arguments and evidences available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, against that present appeal filed.

6. While assailing the impugned judgment, Sri Rajesh Kumer, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The entire case against the appellant is based on two circumstances i.e.:-

(i) Extra-judicial confession of appellant before P.W.-1;

(ii) Recovery of axe by the police on the confession of appellant.

He submits that aforesaid circumstances had not been proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. He further submits that father-in-law of appellant (P.W.-1) had categorically stated that he knows about the occurrence only from Village Munda (P.W.-2). Learned counsel then pointed out that P.W.-2 in his deposition had stated that the appellant had not disclosed anything before him about the occurrence. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the appellant confessed her guilt before P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. He further pointed out that even assuming that she confessed her guilt before P.W.-1 (father-in-law), then also aforesaid circumstance cannot be taken into account for convicting the appellant, because she has not been given any opportunity to explain the same. He further submits that while examining the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the learned court below asked the appellant to explain about the