Judgment : DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD, J. :-, J. ( 1 ) THE instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10-12-1996 and order of sentence dated 11-12-1996 passed in S. T. No. 431/1993 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla convicting the appellant Krist Sanjay Erik Toppo to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for life u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years u/s. 201 IPC and for 10 years u/ss. 366 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief as alleged that on 7-6-1993 one Desh Bandhu Oraon submitted a written report to the Gumla Police Station stating therein that his daughter Gayatri Kumari was missing from St. Angela Girls Hostel at Gumla Sisai Road, who was a student of K. O. College, Gumla. The informent further stated that he visited her hostel on 8-5-1993 as she had failed to turn up home during Holi festival. He came to know that his daughter had left the hostel with the appellant Krist Sanjay Erik Toppo on 13-2-1993 as the appellant had taken away her on false pretext. Thereafter, the appellant approached Amrit Toppo at village Sirmo Ambatoli and inquired about the whereabout of his daughter. He told him that she will reach home within eight days. The informant also learnt from villagers that his daughter was seen accompanying with the appellant and she had stayed in the village for some time. The informant continued in searching his daughter and he also contacted Kulasai Kujur at Nawadih Kataitoli who also assured him to help about the whereabout of his daughter. On 8-4-1993, he reached Chainpur and somehow managed to get in touch with the appellant, Sanjay Erik Toppo who was residing with Bishnu Kumar Ajak and gave lessons in Judo Karate in Mission Compound. The appellant, Sanjay Erik Toppo assured the informant that his daughter would be back within a span of eight days. The informant also contacted the father and mother of the appellant to elicit their co-operation in tracing his daughter but despite their assurances, his daughter did not return. The informant again contacted the appellant who avoided him. At Chainpur, the informant learnt from villager that his daughter Gyatri was either sold somewhere by the appellant or was killed and burried somewhere. The informant again contacted the appellant who avoided him. At Chainpur, the informant learnt from villager that his daughter Gyatri was either sold somewhere by the appellant or was killed and burried somewhere. Accordingly, the informant submitted a written report to the Police, which is Ext. 1. On the basis of which the FIR was lodged u/s. 364/366a/120b of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including, the appellant. ( 3 ) THE police investigated into the case and submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. The accused persons including the appellant appeared in the Court of Sessions and charge u/s. 376/34 and 302/34 and 201/34 was framed against the appellant Krist Sanjay Erik Toppo and one Ratan Toppo; whereas charge u/s. 366 and 120b IPC was framed against the appellant, Krist Sanjay Erik Toppo and other accused persons, which was read over to the accused persons including the appellant, to which they pleaded not guilty. ( 4 ) AT the very outset, it may be noted here that the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life u/s. 302 IPC, who has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) NO doubt, Gayatri Kumari was residing in the hostel at the relevant time and it has come in evidence in clear way that the appellant Sanjay used to meet the victim often. PW-4, the informant claimed to had searched his daughter vehemently but she could not be traced and he came to know, from Anjela Girls Hostel that the appellant Sanjay Erik Toppo had come on 13-2-1993 to meet his daughter in the hostel and thereafter he had taken away his daughter on the false pretext. The informant also rushed to the village Sirmo Ambatoli and also met with the father of Sanjay, the appellant namely, Amrit Toppo who had assured him that his daughter will return after eight days and he had admitted that his daughter had come with Sanjay and they had lived together. He further stated that inmates of the said village also admitted that Sanjay had brought a girl which was residing in Salwar and Jumpher and she used to accompany him. According to him, Sanjay, the appellant confessed his guilt and stated a vivid picture about the murder of his daughter after committing rape. He further stated that inmates of the said village also admitted that Sanjay had brought a girl which was residing in Salwar and Jumpher and she used to accompany him. According to him, Sanjay, the appellant confessed his guilt and stated a vivid picture about the murder of his daughter after committing rape. He had also pointed out the place where she was burried and thereafter police exhumed the dead body from the place near the river to which the appellant Sanjay pointed out. He proved the confessional statement of Sanjay, Ext. 2. and the dead body of his daughter was tied with string with plank and he identified his daughter Gayatri Kumari. Photograph was also taken at the relevant time. He stated in his cross-examination in clear terms that his daughter was admitted in the hostel in the year 1992. According to him, Sanjay, the appellant was arrested on the day, he confessed his guilt in his presence. ( 6 ) PW-6 is the doctor who held post mortem of the dead body, but according to him cause of death could not be ascertained due to advance decomposition of the dead body. Time elapsed since death was more than 30 days. The doctor also found the dead body tied with one cm. thick rope with a wooden plank and wrapped in multiple layers, which itself proves about killing of the girl and dead body was concealed in the side of the river after tying with wooden plank. ( 7 ) PW-7 is the Chowkidar. According to him, the appellant Sanjay stated that he had burried the dead body of the girl on the bank of river and on the pointing of Sanjay the dead body was traced out, which was tied with Patri. The father of the girl was also persent there. ( 8 ) PW-8 is also Chowkidar and also narrated that the dead body was recovered in the side of the river which was burried by the appellant, Sanjay Toppo and this was disclosed by the appellant and the said dead body was recovered on the basis of his confessional statement and he pointed out the place from where the dead body was recovered. ( 9 ) PW-9 Miss Polina Toppo stated that she was also residing in the said Anjela Hostel with Gayatri Kumari (deceased) and the deceased was also reading in B. A. Part-I in K. O. College. There was holiday on the occasion of Holi and Easter in 1993. PW-10 is also a witness on the point of the fact that the dead body was recovered in his presence from the site of the recovery. PW-11 was the B. D. O. Chainpur at the relevant time and in pursuance of the order of the S. D. O. Gumla, he got the dead body exhumed from the place it was pointed out by Sanjay, appellant. The said dead body was tied with a wooden plank and it was identified by the informant as being his daughter. This witness has not been cross-examined and as such his evidence, what he stated in his chief, remained intact. ( 10 ) PW-17 is the villager of appellant and she stated in clear terms that three years ago, Sanjay, appellant had brought one Gori girl who was in Salwar and Jumpher and she used to accompany with Sanjay. It was a time of Easter. She inquired about the said girl from father and mother of the appellant who told them that she had come in Mehmani and after, days again he inquired some then his mother and father told that the girl has returned to his fathers house. PW-18 is also resident of appellant and she narrated in clear terms that Sanjay Erik Toppo has brought a girl in the village. PW-22 was also residing with Gayatri Devi in the same St. Anjela Girls Hostel at the relevant time. According to her, Sanjay Toppo (appellant) who was reading in the said College used to come to Gayatri Kumari in the hostel. On 13-2-1993 he came to meet Gayatri Kumari and they were also talking together in the evening, Gayatri told her that she is proceeding to her house and she left the hostel in the said evening. Thereafter, her father came to the hostel to inquire about his girl and she told him that on 13-2-1993 she had left the hostel with Sanjay Toppo. Thereafter, her father came to the hostel to inquire about his girl and she told him that on 13-2-1993 she had left the hostel with Sanjay Toppo. She stated in her cross-examination that on enquiry, Gayatri told her that Sanjay Erik Toppo is her brother, but it is now very clear that she left her hostel on 13-2-1993 with this appellant, Sanjay. It has also come in evidence by the villagers of appellant itself that Sanjay brought a girl in the village who accompanied him and was seen roaming in the village. ( 11 ) PW-24 is also the room-mate of Gayatri Kumari and according to her Gayatri Kumari was reading in B. A. part-I in K. C. College. She further stated that on 13-2-1993 at about 10 a. m. Sanjay Erik Toppo came to the hostel and both of them talked together in the Guest room. Sanjay Erik Toppo was intending to take her away on false pretext but she was not ready to go with him, but again Sanjay came at 3/4 p. m. and he pursuaded her. Thereafter, Gayatri left with him with suitecase. Thereafter, Gayatri did not return to the hostel after Holi festival. Father of Gayatri came to the hostel and inquired about his daughter and she told him that she has left the hostel with Sanjay Erik Toppo. Thereafter, she came to know that Sanjay Erik Toppo committed murder of Gayatri Kumari. She has clearly stated in her cross-examination that she was residing with Gayatri Kumari in the same room and there is a Guest room in which girls used to talk with the relation/guest. ( 12 ) NO any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and as such appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and he denied the allegation. ( 13 ) PWS-22 and 24 are said to be the room mates of Gayatri Kumari (deceased) and they were also reading with the deceased. According to them, Sanjay Erik Toppo, the appellant used to come and meet the deceased Gayatri Kumari at the hostel 1 and he had also come on 13-2-1993 in the hostel and both Gayatri Kumari and Sanjay, the appellant talked for some times in the Guest room. According to them Gayatri Kumari, deceased left the hostel with appellant, Gayatri Kumari in the evening. According to them Gayatri Kumari, deceased left the hostel with appellant, Gayatri Kumari in the evening. PWs-17 and 18 are the residents of same village, the appellant was residing and according to them Sanjay Erik Toppo, the appellant had brought a Gori girl in the village and they had seen roaming the girl with Sanjay in the village and she used to wear Salwar and Jampher. PW-4, the informant had also rushed to the village Simro Ambatoli and also met with the father of Sanjay, the appellant, namely, Amrit Toppo who had assured him that his daughter will return after eight days. Further, the father of the appellant also admitted that his daughter had come with Sanjay and they had lived together. The informant also managed to meet Sanjay who also assured the informant that his daughter will return after eight days. Sanjay Erik Toppo made confessional statement leading to the recovery of the dead body from the bank of the river which was burried by him tying with string and plank. The dead body of Gayatri Kumari was exhumed at the presence of B. D. O. Chainpur and the Chowkidars as well as the informant, father of the deceased indentified his daughter in clear terms. The said dead body was tied with a wooden plank. The doctor who held post mortem also found the dead body tied with wooden plank. These are the strong circumstances which lead to only conclusion that the appellant Sanjay Erik Toppo took away the girl Gayatri Kumari and thereafter he committed murder and concealed the dead body on the bank of the river after tying her body. ( 14 ) IT is true that in the circumstantial evidence, such evidence satisfy three tests : (I) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; and (iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so completed that there is no scope for conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, it is apparent that the deceased had left the hostel with the appellant of which there is a definite and cogent evidence of the girls who were the room mates of the deceased. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, it is apparent that the deceased had left the hostel with the appellant of which there is a definite and cogent evidence of the girls who were the room mates of the deceased. The villagers of the appellant also admitted that Sanjay Erik Toppo, the appellant had brought a girl wearing Salwar and Jumpher and she was roaming with him in the village. Further, the father of the appellant had given the assurance to the informant who was running in trace of his daughter that she will return after eight days. Further, the appellant, Sanjay also admitted to have concealed the dead body of Gayatri Kumari and burried which was exhumed as pointed out by him. Thus, the circumstances taken cumulatively has formed a chain so completed in the instant case and there is no scope from conclusion that within all human probabilites the crime was committed by the accused and none else and necessary inferences flowing from said circumstances can be used as a chain of incriminating circumstances fastenging the guilt on the appellant only. ( 16 ) MR. T. R. Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that there is no eye witness of the occurrence as well as the dead body was not identified as it was decomposed. It is also argued that the confessional statement before the police as made by the appellant cannot be taken into evidence and the learned counsel also relied upon a case of Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa reported in April 1991 SC 1388. But the fact of the instant case is quite distinguishable and in the instant case, the chain of circumstances has fully been completed. 16a. It may be noted here that informant, the father of the deceased indentified the dead body as being his daughter and so the question of no identification of the dead body does not arise. Further, the argument as placed on behalf of the appellant has got no substance in view of the fact that there are strong circumstances from which only inference can be drawn that the appellant, Sanjay Erik Toppo committed the murder of Gayatri Kumari and concealed the dead body on the side of the river after tying with wooden plank. Further, the argument as placed on behalf of the appellant has got no substance in view of the fact that there are strong circumstances from which only inference can be drawn that the appellant, Sanjay Erik Toppo committed the murder of Gayatri Kumari and concealed the dead body on the side of the river after tying with wooden plank. ( 17 ) HAVING regard to the prove facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence collected, it is evident that the prosecution has fully established the charge against the appellant Sanjay Erik Toppo beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 18 ) IN the result I, find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences charged. Thus, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ( 19 ) VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD , J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .