Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. Both the Crl. Appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 8.1.1991 in S.T. No. 289 of 1988 passed by Shri R.P. Verma, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. Hence, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2, The appellant (Sohail Mian) in Crl. Appeal No. 11 of 1991 (R), has been convicted and sentenced under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Further, he nas been convicted and sentenced under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code to one year rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Appellant Abul Hassan (whose alias name is Kartoon Mian) in Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 1991 (R) has been convicted under Sections 302/201 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life rigorous imprisonment for five years, and rigorous imprisonment for ten years respectively thereunder. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, as made out in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) is as under : Mahendra Jeep No. BPR 1567, belonging to Anita Manjhi, wife of informant, Lara Pada Manjhi (PW 4), used to ply as taxi on Nirsa-Dhanbad route. Puran Gope, the deceased, who was the son of informants sister, was its driver. Vishnu Thakur (PW 5), a resident of Nirsa, was its Khalasi. During night, the deceased used to park the Jeep, have his food and sleep at the house of the informant. But in the night of 29.11.1987, the deceased did not return with the Jeep to the informants house. The next morning, the informant searched for the Jeep at Nirsa Taxi stand and in the company of some persons at different police stations, but he got no trace/clue. They returned to Nirsa in the afternoon. On inquiry, Vishnu Thakur, Khalasi, told them that on 29.11.1987 at about 8 p.m. near Nirsa Cinema, he, the deceased, appellant Abul Hassan @ Kartoon Mian (a driver) and Chote Gupta, a Khalasi (an absconder), both residents of Kanchandih, ate egg, whereafter Vishnu Thakur stayed there and the deceased proceeded with his Jeep in the company of appellant Abul Hassan and Chote Gupta towards Kanchandih. On getting this information, the informant along with Jiweshwar Mishra and Ankur Manjhi (PW 6) went to the house of appellant Abul Hassan, but he was not found. A search for him at place of his friend at Isri-Dumri (in district Giridih) went in vain. On 1.11.1987, at about 10 a.m., the informant got information that appellant (Abul Hassan) is at Kanchandih, whereupon he along with Jiweshwar Mishra, Suresh Agarwal (PW 7), Ankur Manjhi (PW 6), Sudhir Manjhi (PW 3), Jaideo Patra (PW 1), Chandi Charan Patra (PW 2) and some others went to Kanchandih and apprehended him and brought him to Nirsa Taxi Stand, and when questioned, he made extra-judicial confession in their presence that on the pretext of engaging the Jeep on hire, he along with Chote Gupta, brought the deceased (Puran Gope) with the Jeep to the house of Pahlawan at Kanchandih, where he Basir Mian, Pahlawan and Chote Gupta, over-powered and forcibly took him to the heap of stones/earth at Dakhi Mata Colliery, killed him cutting the throat and concealed the dead body and thereafter, appellant Abul Hasan @ Kartoon Mian, Basir Mian, and Chote Gupta took the Jeep to Bettiah and sold it to a garage owner, Basir Mian, gave Rs. 1,700/-(which was recovered) to him, and this morning he had returned, when he was apprehended and he stated that the dead body and the Jeep could be recovered on going with him. Meanwhile, the police officer (PW 14) arrived, who recorded the fardbeyan at Nirsa Taxi Stand on 1.12.1987 at 12 noon. The appellant (Abul Hassan) and the recovered sum of Rs. 1,700/-were handed over to the police officer. Meanwhile, the police officer (PW 14) arrived, who recorded the fardbeyan at Nirsa Taxi Stand on 1.12.1987 at 12 noon. The appellant (Abul Hassan) and the recovered sum of Rs. 1,700/-were handed over to the police officer. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the present case came to be instituted, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit 3) was drawn up, the police officer (PW 14) assumed and commenced the investigation, on the pointing out by the appellant (Abul Hassan @ Kartoon Mian) the dead body of Puran Gope, with wounds, was recovered concealed in the middle of Dakhi Mata Colliery overburden mound by the police officer in presence of the witnesses, he held inquest over the dead body, sent it for the post-mortem examination, on the pointing out by the appellant (Abul Hassan @ Kartoon Mian), the parts of the Jeep were recovered on 2.12.1987 from the garage of Ramji Sharma (PW 2) (vide Exhibit 4) and the garage of Shamser Mistri (vide Exhibit 4/1) at Bettiah and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was held in Court against the accused-appellants. The case was, ultimately, committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 22.6.1988 passed by Sri A.K. Sinha, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 5. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Out of them, PW 12 (Om Prakash), is tendered witness, PW 7 (Suresh Agrawal) is not a material witness. PW 8 (Ramji Sharma), PW 9 (Mohammad Usman), PW 10 (Rajendra Mistri), PW 11 (Shankar Mistri) and PW 13 (Sarfuddin Ansari) are witnesses on the point of recovery of parts of the Jeep. The other PWs are : PW 1 (Jaideo Patra), PW 2 (Chandi Charan Patra), PW 3 (Sudhir Manjhi), PW 4 (Tarapado Manjhi), PW 5 (Vishnu Thakur), PW 6 (Ankur Manjhi), PW 12 (Om Prakash Mistri), PW 14 (Suryabansh Choube), the Investigating Officer, and PW 15 (Dr. Rai Sudhir Prasad), who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The defence, on the other hand, examined no witness. 7. On consideration of the evidence and materials, brought on record, the trial Court herd the appellants guilty of the respective charge and convicted and sentenced them in the manner, indicated above. 8. Mr. Rai Sudhir Prasad), who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The defence, on the other hand, examined no witness. 7. On consideration of the evidence and materials, brought on record, the trial Court herd the appellants guilty of the respective charge and convicted and sentenced them in the manner, indicated above. 8. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant (Abul Hassan @ Kartoon Mian) has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence on extra-judicial confession and the alleged confession before the police, leading to discovery of the dead body and the parts of the stolen Jeep was suspect; that the witnesses have not spoken about the exact words, spoken by the appellant in the alleged extra-judicial confession; that the identity of the parts of the Jeep alleged to have been recovered, has not been established with the identity of the stolen Jeep; that the sheer recovery of the dead body at the instance of one, would not lead to the conclusion that he is a murderer and on mere conjectures, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court on different counts. 9. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant (Sohail Mian), has contended that no Jeep or its part is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant and as such the conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law. He further contended that when he had been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, there was no justification to record the conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge of causing disappearance of the evidence or theft of the vehicle. In the alternative, he argued that the impugned order that the sentences on the two counts are to run consecutively is unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. 10. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, has, however, supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 11. The point, which now falls for consideration/determination is : whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the different heads of charge, as mentioned above, to the respective accused/appellants, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 12. The factum of murder of deceased (Puran Gope) is not in dispute. 13. PW 15 (Dr. 11. The point, which now falls for consideration/determination is : whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the different heads of charge, as mentioned above, to the respective accused/appellants, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 12. The factum of murder of deceased (Puran Gope) is not in dispute. 13. PW 15 (Dr. Rai Sudhir Prasad) has testified to the effect that on 2.12.1987 at about 10.30 a.m. he held post-mortem examination on the corpse of Puran Gope and he found the following ante-mortem wounds on his persons : (i) Incised looking wound 4" x 1" x trachea deep on middle of front of neck and 4-1/2" x 1/2" x skin deep placed half inch below the above injury. The margin of both the wounds were not very clean out and were caused by cutting instrument, not having so sharp edge. (ii) Lacerated wound 3" x 1" x scalp deep on the left side of forehead. (iii) Abrasions 1" x 1" and 1" x 1" on back of both shoulders. On dissection, the trachea and external carotid arteries were found to be (sic). Left 4th to 6th ribs and right 5th ribs were to and fractured with echyeosis of both lungs. According to him, the death has due to external and internal ante-mortem injuries and the time elapsed since death was between 2 and 3 days of the postmortem examination. He found that the post-mortem injuries, such as lacerated wound and abrasions on back of chest, were possible, when a dead body is dragged on rocky substance. He has further opined that the ante-mortem incised wound in the middle of front of neck were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Exhibit 3 is the carbon copy of the post-mortem report in his pen. It is well established by the medical evidence that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 14 There is overwhelming evidence including that of the informant (PW 4) and the Khalasi (PW 5) that the Jeep bearing No. BPR 1567 belonged to the informants wife. 15. The case rests on circumstantial evidence on the murder of the deceased by the appellant Abul Hassan alias Kartoon Mian. 14 There is overwhelming evidence including that of the informant (PW 4) and the Khalasi (PW 5) that the Jeep bearing No. BPR 1567 belonged to the informants wife. 15. The case rests on circumstantial evidence on the murder of the deceased by the appellant Abul Hassan alias Kartoon Mian. PW 5 (Vishnu Thakur), the Khalasi of the Jeep bearing No. BPR 1567, has testified to the effect that on 29.11.1987 between 7.30 to 8 p.m. he and the deceased (Puran Gope) were eating egg near Nirsa Cinema turning and in the meantime, appellant (Abul Hassan alias Kartoon Mian) and Chote Gupta came and asked to provide them eggs, whereafter the deceased and PW 5 offered them eggs, the deceased paid the wages to PW 5 and the appellant (Abul Hassan), Chote Gupta and the deceased (Puran Gope) said in the Jeep bearing No. BPR 1567 and they went worry in the said Jeep. PW 5, in spite of searching cross-examination, is quite consistent in his evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant Abul Hassan and Chote Gupta and went away with the said Jeep in their company. PW 5 has stated that he had disclosed this fact to the informant on the next day, on enquiry made by him, when the Jeep had not returned. PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have corroborated the testimony of PW 5 on this point. An argument has been advanced by the appellants learned counsel that the doctor did not find participles of egg in the post-mortem examination and this makes the evidence of PW 5 suspect that the deceased had eaten egg. It is suffice to say that the post-mortem was held 2/3 days after the death of the deceased, the doctor could identify only decomposed SAG and BAG in the stomach and he was unable to say that there could be no particles of egg or salt. He might not have been able to detect it due to decomposition of the dead body. So, in the circumstances, the testimony of PW 5, which is otherwise credible on the point, cannot be discredited, simply because the doctor, did not notice the particles of egg in the stomach of the deceased. 16. One may now come to the extra-judicial confession, alleged to have been made by the appellant (Abul Hassan) before the informant and others PWs. 16. One may now come to the extra-judicial confession, alleged to have been made by the appellant (Abul Hassan) before the informant and others PWs. PWs 1 and 2 are witnesses on the point of confession and disclosures made by him in presence of the police. PW 3 (Sudhir Manjhi), PW 4, the informant (Tarapado Manjhi) and PW 6 (Ankur Manjhi) have testified to the effect that in the morning of 1.12.1987, they apprehended the appellant and brought him to Nirsa Taxi stand and on inquiry, made by them, he admitted to have decoyed the deceased with his Jeep on the pretext of hiring it, brought him to Kanchandih, murdered him with his associates by cutting the throat, concealed the dead body in the overburden mound of the colliery and the Jeep was taken to Bettiah, here it was sold by Basir Mian to a garage owner and he had got Rs. 1,700/- as part of his share in it. The PWs have given the gist of the extra-judicial confession made, by the appellant (Abul Hassan). PW 4 (Tarapado Manjhi) has not been cross-examined by the defence on this point. Hence, his testimony regarding the extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant remains unchallenged. In spite of cross-examination their evidence could not be shaken. In the cross-examination, stray statement has been made by PW 3 that he was not examined by the police during investigation. It seems that in some confusion and without understanding the implication, he has made such vague statement. So, much significance cannot be attributed to it. It has come in the evidence of the PWs that the police officer came soon after the appellant had made extra-judicial confession. There is no reason to discard the testimony of PWs 3, 4 and 6 that the appellant had made extra-judicial confession. It is well settled that extra-judicial confession by its nature is a weak type of evidence and it cannot be a foundation for conviction, in absence of corroboration from other reliable evidence on record (Ref : Pakkiri Swamy V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (8) SCC 158 and Kavita V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 (6) SCC 108 ). 17. It is well settled that extra-judicial confession by its nature is a weak type of evidence and it cannot be a foundation for conviction, in absence of corroboration from other reliable evidence on record (Ref : Pakkiri Swamy V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (8) SCC 158 and Kavita V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 (6) SCC 108 ). 17. The next circumstance, relied on by the prosecution against the appellant (Abul Hassan) is the recovery of the dead body of the deceased on pointing (sic) the effect that after recording the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2), he assumed investigation and on pointing out by the appellant, he recovered the dead body of Puran Gope, the driver, with wounds, concealed in the stones from the overburden mound of the colliery and a plastic shoe of the deceased with blood stains nearby the deceased and stones with blood stains were seized by him. It has come in his cross-examination that the mound is in a solitary place. His evidence shows that the G.T. road is below the mound and the hut of Pahlawan was adjacent south to the G.T. road. PWs 1 and 2 have stated that the appellant had made disclosure about the concealment of the dead body of the police officer, which was recovered in their presence. PW 3 was testified to the effect that the appellant had pointed out the concealed dead body of Puran Gope to the police and he had identified it to be of deceased (Puran Gope). PW 4 too has stated that the appellant had pointed out the concealed dead body. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 lends assurance to the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW 14) that the dead body had been recovered on pointing out by the appellant (Abul Hassan), which was concealed within the mound and at. a secluded place. Its concealment could not have been known to a person, unless he was involved in the murder of the deceased. This circumstance lends corroboration to the extra-judicial confession, made by the appellant. 18. One may now come to the circumstances/evidence regarding the recovery of the parts of the Jeep on the disclosure made by the appellant. a secluded place. Its concealment could not have been known to a person, unless he was involved in the murder of the deceased. This circumstance lends corroboration to the extra-judicial confession, made by the appellant. 18. One may now come to the circumstances/evidence regarding the recovery of the parts of the Jeep on the disclosure made by the appellant. PW 14 (Suryabansh Choube) has testified to the effect that after recovery of the dead body, on the disclosure made by the appellant (Abul Hassan), he went with him to Bettiah for recovery of the Jeep and reached the old bus stand at Bettiah and on his pointing out, he raided and searched the nearby garage of Ramji Mistri (PW 8) and recovered the chasis, body and other parts of the robbed Jeep 1567 in presence of the witnesses, vide Exhibit 4, which is date 2.12.1987. PW 8 (the garage owner) PW 9, and PW 13, the seizure list witnesses and PW 10 (Rajendra Mistri), the owner of the land and the adjacent garage, have corroborated the factum of search and recovery. They (except PW 13) have stated that the No. of the Jeep, the chasis and parts of which were seized, was BPR 1567. PW 8 has deposed that the appellant (Abul Hassan) was sitting in the Jeep, bearing No. BPR 1567, when it was brought to his garage on 30.11.1987 for dismantling its body. PW 10 (Rajendra Mistri) identified this appellant as one of those who had brought the Jeep No. BPR 1567 to the garage of PW 8 on 30.11.1987. PW 14 has further stated that on the next day, on 3.12.1987, at about 11 a.m., he had made raid on the garage of Sameer Mistri, which is situate adjacent to the old bus stand at Bettiah and he seized the bearings of the Jeep and other parts, packed in the bag in presence of the witnesses under seizure list (Exhibit 4/1). The recovery of the parts of the Jeep on the disclosure made by the appellant, which is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 8 and 10, that he had brought the Jeep to the garage for dismantling is yet another strong evidence to establish his complicity in the crime. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the PWs, including the Investigating Officer. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the PWs, including the Investigating Officer. The extra-judicial confession gets corroboration from the medical evidence, the recovery of the dead body and the parts of the Jeep, on the disclosure made by the appellant. 19. In view of the discussions made above, in my considered view, the appellant (Abul Hassan alias Kartoon Mian) has been rightly convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder. 20. One may now come to the case of the appellant (Sohail Mian). PW 8 (Ramji Sharma), the garage owner, has deposed that on 30.11.1987, this appellant (Sohail Mian), one of those who has brought the Jeep, had asked him to dismantle the body of the Jeep No. BPR 1567 and he took away the dismantled body on 1.12.1987 and 2.12.1987 at about noon, he had brought a mechanic for dismantling its engine. PW 9 (Md. Usman), the mechanic has corroborated the testimony of PW 8 that the body of Jeep No. BPR 1567 was dismantled, at the instance of the appellant (Sohail Mian). PW 11 (Shankar Mistri), an a independent mechanic, has testified to the effect that he had dismounted the engine and gearbox of Jeep No. BPR 1567 on 1.12.1987 at the instance of this appellant. PWs 8, 9, 10 and 11 have identified this appellant. 21. The PWs are consistent in their evidence that Jeep No. BPR 1567 had been brought by the appellant (Sohail Mian) and at his instance, it was dismantled. There is no reason to discard their testimony. It has been held above that the Jeep is the subject- matter of the robbery. An argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the co-accused (Abul Hassan alias Kartoon Mian) has not implicated this appellant in his extra-judicial confession and the Jeep or its parts were not recovered from his possession, and as such the conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law. The evidence and the circumstances of the case establish beyond doubt that this appellant Sohail Mian had the knowledge or reason to believe that the Jeep was stolen property and he assisted in its dismantle, disposal of parts. The evidence and the circumstances of the case establish beyond doubt that this appellant Sohail Mian had the knowledge or reason to believe that the Jeep was stolen property and he assisted in its dismantle, disposal of parts. Hence, he is liable for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, since no stolen property was recovered from his possession. It is true that he has not been separately charged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. But, it has to be borne in mind that offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is cognate offence to that of Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence embracing the ingredients of an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as led by the prosecution and the defence had full opportunity and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. So, no prejudice has been caused to the defence, if no separate charge under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, this appellant (Sohail Mian) is convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. His conviction and sentence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. He has also been charged and convicted by the trial Court under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of the evidence of theft of the Jeep, when he has been convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, his conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. So, his conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. 23. In the result, the appeal of Abul Hassan (Kartoon Mian), i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 1991 (R), is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court are affirmed. So far appeal of Sohail Mian, i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 1991(R), is concerned, it is also dismissed with the modification in the order of convictions and sentences passed against him by the trial Court, to the extent indicated above. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court are affirmed. So far appeal of Sohail Mian, i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 1991(R), is concerned, it is also dismissed with the modification in the order of convictions and sentences passed against him by the trial Court, to the extent indicated above. He is directed to surrender to his bail-bond in the Court below forthwith and if it is found by the trial Court that he is still required to serve out the remaining part of his sentence as indicated above, he will be sent to custody to serve out the same. If it is not so, he shall be released from his bail bond. It is made clear that if the appellant (Sohail Mian) fails to surrender, the Court below shall take all steps for his apprehension. R.A.Sharma, J. 24 I agree.