KAMAL KISHORE, J. Criminal Revision No. 76/99 as well as Criminal Appeal Nos. 156 and 157 of 1999 have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11-1-1999 passed by Sri Shamshad Ali, the then III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, hence the criminal revision as well as criminal appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Km. Manorama, aged about 6 years, is the cousin sister of the informant Umesh Pratap Gupta. Both the convict appellants Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram belong to the same village. Accused Smt. Sukhraji is the wife of convict Dhani Ram, while accused Smt. Dukhana is their daughter. Accused Smt. Dukhana was issue less and was trying to have issue. She took the help of convict Jai Shree Yadav, who used to do OJHA (a worship for removing evil spirit ). It was the period of nav RATRA. The accused Smt. Dukhana came to the house of her father Dhani Ram where the convict Jai Shree Yadav was summoned, who used to do Tantran- Mantran so that Smt. Dhukhana may be get a child. The victim Manorama went to see television as usual. She had not returned on the day of occurrence, hence the informant side had search for her. It was on the fourth day of her since she was missing. Khelayee (PW 7) told regarding the murder of Manorama on which the informant reached the place of occurrence and found that some one has committed her murder with motive to commit sacrifice (BALI ). The FIR (Ext. Ka-1) regarding the occurrence was lodged by the informant Umesh Pratap with the police station Lambhua within District Sultanpur on the basis of which chick FIR (Ext. Ka-5) was prepared. The case was investigated by Sri Ram Naresh Yadav (PW 13) S. O. of P. S. Lambhua, District Sultanpur, who has got the dead-body sealed and sent the same to mortuary for post- mortem and prepared the site-plan (Ext. Ka-11 ). Sri Ram Naresh Yadav (PW 13) SC has recorded the statement of the witnesses and has submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-13) after completing the investigation. 3. The charge was framed against all the four accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. Ka-11 ). Sri Ram Naresh Yadav (PW 13) SC has recorded the statement of the witnesses and has submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-13) after completing the investigation. 3. The charge was framed against all the four accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. After full trial, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sultanpur has convicted Jai Shree Yadav of Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1999 and Dhani Ram, who has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1999 and has acquitted both the ladies accused Smt. Sukhraji and Smt. Dukhana for the aforesaid offences. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction, the accused have preferred both the aforesaid criminal appeals and the complainant has preferred Criminal Revision No. 76 of 1999. 4. We have heard the arguments of parties Counsel in the aforesaid revision as well as the appeals preferred by the convicts. 5. None of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, is alleged to have seen the occurrence of murder and the prosecution has believed its case on circumstantial evidence mainly extra- judicial confession made by the convicts Dhani Ram and Jai Shree Yadav and recovery made under Section 27 Evidence Act on the instance of both convicts, coupled with the motive etc. 6. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in 1976 SCC (Crl.) p. 120, Chand Mal & another v. State of Rajasthan, that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence must satisfy three tests : Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be firmly and cogently established. Secondly, these circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities; the crime was committed by the accused and none-else. That is to say, the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of accuseds guilt. Thirdly, the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused. 7. The same view has been followed by Honble Supreme Court in recent ruling also as reported in 2003 SCW 3491, Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa and 2000 SCC (Crl.) 845, State of U. P. v. Babu Ram. Thirdly, the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused. 7. The same view has been followed by Honble Supreme Court in recent ruling also as reported in 2003 SCW 3491, Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa and 2000 SCC (Crl.) 845, State of U. P. v. Babu Ram. In the instant case, the prosecution has established its case against the accused cogently and firmly. The circumstantial evidence, adduced by the prosecution, of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances, if taken cumulatively, do form a complete chain to prove that in all probability the crime was committed by the accused and none-else. 8. The prosecution has proved the chain of extra-judicial confession. The prosecution has examined Krishna Kumar Singh (PW 3), who has deposed regarding extra-judicial confession made by the convict- accused Dhani Ram and PW 6 Raj Bahadur Singh, who has deposed regarding extra-judicial confession made by the convict- appellant Jai Shree OJHA (wizard ). Raj Bahadur Singh (PW 6) has also proved the recovery of the articles under Section 27 Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer examined by the prosecution, as PW 13 has also corroborated the extra-judicial confession made by the accused and the recovery of BANKA, the weapon of assault in the instant case as well as the frock and kachchha of victim Km. Mandrama at the instance of accused Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the ruling, reported in 1977 ACC 374, Piaru Singh & others v. State of Punjab, that law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. In the instant case, the extra- judicial confession was proved by an independent witness and a responsible officer, who bore no animus against the accused and there was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence. We find that the extra-judicial confessions were true and voluntary and accordingly, the conviction and sentences, based on confession were unassaiable as per the ruling, reported in 1982 Criminal Law Journal 2346, Bhuleshwar Babern v. State. We find that the extra-judicial confessions were true and voluntary and accordingly, the conviction and sentences, based on confession were unassaiable as per the ruling, reported in 1982 Criminal Law Journal 2346, Bhuleshwar Babern v. State. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid ruling of Honble Supreme Court, we find that the extra-judicial confession, made by the accused Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram inspires confidence and the prosecution has been able to prove this chain of extra-judicial confession also. 9. Raj Bhadur Singh (PW 6) and Ram Yagya Pathak (PW 9) have deposed regarding recovery of weapon of assault and clothes were by victim Km. Manorama. PW 13, the Investigating Officer of this case has duly proved the recovery and seizure of the articles at the instance of Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram, convict- appellants. This separates the case. The recovery and seizure of the articles recovered under Section 27 Evidence Act is most incriminating circumstance. In a case of like nature where victims muffler and radio were recovered from the possession of the accused, the seizure of the articles was held to be the most incriminating fact in the case, based on circumstantial evidence, as per the ruling reported in 1986 Criminal Law Journal 2077, Krishna Chandra Santra v. State. Under these circumstances, we find that the prosecution has connected the accused with the present crime. 10. The defence has also pointed out some omissions in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses, made under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The Honble Supreme Court has observed in State of Haryana v. Sher Singh & others, 1981 C. A. R. 122, that the FIR need not contain the details of occurrence and omission in the FIR is not a contradiction. In Matadin and others v. State of U. P. , 1979 ACC 55 (Summary), it was held that the statements, given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take the place of evidence in the Court. As such the omissions here and there in the FIR or statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. pointed out by the defence, are firstly not material and secondly these FIR and the statements are meant to be brief. The statement, given before the trial Court, must contain full facts and circumstances leading to those facts. As such the omissions here and there in the FIR or statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. pointed out by the defence, are firstly not material and secondly these FIR and the statements are meant to be brief. The statement, given before the trial Court, must contain full facts and circumstances leading to those facts. Hence, such omissions did not make a witness self- contained liar and the argument of the learned Counsel for the defence, to the contrary is not tenable. 11. The case of the prosecution and the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution finds further support from the medical evidence. The prosecution examined Dr. A. K. Khare (PW 14), who has conducted post-mortem on the dead-body of victim Km. Manorama. On the post-mortem, Dr. A. K. Khare has found incised wound on the neck of the deceased by which the throat of the victim was cut away. He has further deposed that the deceased has died during the relevant date and time as a result of injuries sustained by sharp edged weapon like BANKA. The medical evidence thus corroborates the testimony of the witnesses and supports the case of the prosecution and since the testimony of the witnesses is supported by the medical evidence also, we have every reason to place reliance on the testimony of the witnesses and the case of the prosecution, as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in 1976 Criminal Appeals Reporter 49, Shyam Balu Chaugle v. State of Maharashtra. 12. Thus we find that so far as the convict-appellants Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram are concerned, the prosecution has firmly and cogently established the circumstances of extra-judicial confession, recovery made under Section 27 Evidence Act and the motive of the convict-appellants to commit the present crime and these circumstances, taken cumulatively form a complete chain to the effect that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the convict- appellants and none-else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of both the appellants. 13. The complainant Rama Shanker Gupta has filed revision against the acquittal of Smt. Dukhana and Smt. Sukhraji. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of both the appellants. 13. The complainant Rama Shanker Gupta has filed revision against the acquittal of Smt. Dukhana and Smt. Sukhraji. According to Section 401 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 14. In the result, the revision preferred by the complainant as well as both the appeals preferred by both convicts Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram are dismissed. The judgment and order recorded by the learned trial Court is maintained in its totality. Convicts Jai Shree Yadav and Dhani Ram (both the appellants) are in jail and shall serve out the imprisonment awarded to them. Appeal dismissed. .