The admissibility of confessions, the requirement of warnings, and the need for corroboration to the retracted confession were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGEMENT

P. K. Mohanti, J. :- This is a prisoner's appeal against his conviction under S.302, I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Accusation against the appellant was that he caused the death of his daughter Gitarani Mandal on 19th Apr. 1978 at about 6.30 a.m. by means of an axe.

3. The prosecution case was that the deceased Gitarani Mandal had been given in marriage to P.W. 5 Manohar Mandal about a fortnight prior to the occurrence. It was discovered that she was pregnant by the time of her marriage. So she was sent back to the house of the appellant. On 18th Apr. 1978 a meeting was held at the village and she was asked to disclose the name of her paramour, but she refused to do so. The villagers advised the appellant to allow her to remain with him till her delivery. In the next morning, her dead body was found lying at the residential house of the appellant with several cut injuries across her neck. The appellant is alleged to have admitted before the villagers that he caused her death as she did not disclose the name of her paramour. One of the villagers named Nirod Chandra Biswas (P.W. 1) lodged information at the Umorkote Police Station and investigation was taken up. In course of the investigation, the appellant made a judicial confession before the Special Judicial Magistrate of Umerkote. The wearing cloth of the appellant was seized at the time of his arrest as it was found to have been stained with blood. In due course, the appellant was charge-sheeted by the police and committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial.

4. During his examination under S.313, Cr. P.C the appellant admitted that the deceased returned to his house about 15 days after her marriage; that he called a meeting of the villagers on 18-4-1975 and told them that the deceased had become pregnant by the time of her marriage and sought for their advice as to whether she should be accepted by the society. He, however, denied having made any confession and contended that his wearing cloth got stained with blood as he fell on the dead body of the deceased on account of extreme grief.

5. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the retracted confessions of the appellant and some other circumstantial evidence held the appellant guilty and inflicted the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.

The learned counsel who appeared amicus curiae to defend the appellant contended that the formalities prescribed by S.164, Cr. P.C. were not observed in recording the judicial confession and that the extra-judicial confession was made in presence of a police officer and hence the confessions are not admissible in evidence. She also contended that there is no other evidence to sustain take conviction.

6. The evidence of the doctor PW 7, who performed post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased clearly establishes that the death was homicidal. The doctor found three incised wounds on the neck of the deceased and opined that these injuries could be caused by three successive strokes. The carotid artery and jugular vein were cut on the left side of the neck. The trachea was also cut in its anterior half. In the doctor's opinion, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could be caused by an axe like M.O.I. the doctor also opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

7. There is no ocular evidence about the occurrence of murder. The order of conviction is based on the retracted confessions of the appellant and some other circumstantial evidence. 8. It has been urged before us that the record of judicial confession (Ext. 8) should be excluded from consideration as it does not show that the Magistrate warned the accused that he was not bound to confess and that any confession made by him might be used as evidence against him. It appears that the Magistrate was examined in the case as PW 10 and he stated that he did warn the accused that