JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 13, 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 141/98. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant Bhupen Sarmah under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Anr. one year. The Appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Anr. six months for his conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and Ms. B. Saikia, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. One Sri Tara Prasad Doley (P.W. 4) lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Barbaruah Police Station on November 26, 1995 alleging that his son Sri jogesh Doley went to Bogeebil Chapari in search of a missing buffalo about a month back, He did not return home. The complainant enquired about the whereabouts of his son from Sri Bhupen Sarmah, the Appellant. Suspicion arese there of and from the enquiry the informant could gather that none but the Appellant Bhupen had killed his son. When interrogated thoroughly the Appellant admitted that he had killed Jogesh and had buried the dead body in the Brahmaputra Chapari 4. On receipt of the aforesaid (sic) P.W. 4, Barbaruah P.S. Case No 123(sic) under Section 302/201I.P.C. was registed The investigation was entrusted to (sic) Pathak, S.I. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the Appellant under Section 302/201 IPC. 5. On receipt of the case on commitment the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh framed charge against the Appellant under Section 302/201 IPC. The charges framed were explained to the Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial, recorded the statement of eleven witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The defence case, as it appears from the trend in cross-examination is of complete denial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforesaid. 6. At the very beginning let us deal with the post mortem report. P.W. 6 Dr. The defence case, as it appears from the trend in cross-examination is of complete denial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforesaid. 6. At the very beginning let us deal with the post mortem report. P.W. 6 Dr. R. Chaliha performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Jogesh Doley on being identified by Constable No. 532 P.K. Gohain and Naren Pegu, brother-in-law of the deceased. The doctor found the following injuries: External appearance: An almost completely skeletonised male dead body of about 35 years wearing nothing. All the bones are present. No soft tissue are present only the vertebral scalp as attached together by the ligaments. Injuries: A clean cut incised wound present over the occipital and pariental bone on the left side with the fissure fracture extending to the midline. The left candylas process of the mandible is completely cut off clearly and is missing. Thorax: Ribs and cartilages are healthy. Soft tissues are missing. Abdomen: Soft tissues are missing. Cranium and spinal canal: Scalp is missing. Injury of the skull has been described. Membrane and brain are missing. Opinion: Death is due to coma as a result of injuries to the head described. All the injuries are ante mortem being caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and are homicidal in nature. Time since death approximately 30-45 days. 7. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he only found the skeleton of the dead person. The body was not identifiable. The evidence of this witness shows that the skeleton of a person was recovered which bore injury marks as captioned above and the body was not identifiable. 8. P.W. 4 Tara Pd. Doley, the father of the deceased stated that the body was recovered from a place shown by the Appellant. It was the body of his son Jogesh Doley. Except this statement P.W. 4 said nothing in his examination-in-chief. P.W. 5 Dharma Kanta Tyed stated that he along with the police and the Magistrate went to the Brahmaputra Chapari in a jeep where they found the accused-Appellant kept under hand cuff. On being asked by the police, the accused showed a place. It was dug and a dead body was brought out. According to P.W. 5, "long pants and shirt were in the wearings of the deceased". On being asked by the police, the accused showed a place. It was dug and a dead body was brought out. According to P.W. 5, "long pants and shirt were in the wearings of the deceased". He denied the suggestion that no cloth was found with the dead body and that the clothes were lying near the place where the dead body was found. P.W. 7 Sri Kanak Doley who was present at the time of discovery of the dead body stated that he saw a shirt and a long pant lying there. He could recognise them to be Jogesh's wearings. The shirt and the pant were in tattered state. P.W. 8 Sri Jatin Bora also accompanied the police to the Brahmaputra Chapari. He did not say anything as to whose dead body it was. This witness was declared hostile and it was suggested to him that he had stated before the Investigating Officer that the police had dug out a human skull and bones in presence of an Executive Magistrate. P.W. 9 Sri Siddeswar Sonowal is a Sub Inspector of Police. He was not in charge of the investigation at the time of discovery of the dead body. P.W. 10, Sri Dambarudhar Pathak was the Investigating Officer. He stated that digging the pit about half a metre deep, broken human bones and skull were found. At a little distance from the pit the bones below the waist portion of the deceased were recovered. With those bones a torn long pant was found. The father and wife of the deceased identified the pant. He also seized a sweater, a pair of hawai sandal and a piece of long pant which he found near the pit vide Exhibit- 5. Exhibit-5(2) is his signature. P.W. 11. Sri Mrigen Gogoi was the Circle Officer, West Revenue Circle, Dibrugarh at the relevant time. He was deputed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh to recover the dead body. He along with the police went to the Brahmaputra Chapari. Bhupen Sarmah, the Appellant pointed out a sandy place. It was dug and from there pieces of bone and skull were found. At a distance of about 20 cubits broken bones below the waist portion were found. With those bones a torn piece of long pant was found. 9. He along with the police went to the Brahmaputra Chapari. Bhupen Sarmah, the Appellant pointed out a sandy place. It was dug and from there pieces of bone and skull were found. At a distance of about 20 cubits broken bones below the waist portion were found. With those bones a torn piece of long pant was found. 9. The evidence of the above witnesses do not show that there was any scope for identifying the dead body as that of Jogesh Doley. The statement of P.W. 4, the father of the deceased that it was the dead body of his son is not convincing as because it was virtually the skeleton and the bones which were recovered. The statement of P.W. 5 that long pants and shirt were in the wearings of the deceased is not supported by P.W. 10 Sri Dambarudhar Pathak, the Investigating officer. He simply stated that with the bones a torn long pant was found and further that the father and the wife of the deceased identified the pant. P.W. 7 Kanak Doley, the brother of the deceased stated that he saw a shirt and a long pant lying at the place from where the dead body was dug out. P.W. 8 Jatin Bora stated that the police found bones and clothes and prepared the seizure list, Exhibit-5. The wife of the deceased has not been examined. Exhibit-4, the inquest report shows that broken pieces of bones and skull of the dead body were recovered and further that a long pant was seen sticking to the bones of the waist. The inquest report further shows that the father and the wife of the deceased identified the pant to be that of the deceased. Exhibit-5 is the seizure list which shows that one woollen sweater of red colour, a pair of old hawai sandals and a piece of black long pant was seized. Though the body as such was not identifiable, Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel argued that as the long pant belonging to the deceased duly identified by his father was attached to the bones of the waist, it can be safely concluded that the skull and the skeleton were that of Jogesh Doley. Though the body as such was not identifiable, Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel argued that as the long pant belonging to the deceased duly identified by his father was attached to the bones of the waist, it can be safely concluded that the skull and the skeleton were that of Jogesh Doley. On the basis of this piece of evidence only it may not be safe to conclude that the human skeleton/bones dug out by the police at the instance of the Appellant were that of the deceased Jogesh. But when read with the other evidence i.e. the extra judicial confession and the fact that the skull and the skeleton were recovered at the instance of the Appellant, the prosecution story appears to be fully established. 10. P.W. 10 Dambarudhar Pathak, the investigating Officer stated that he recorded the statement of the accused-Appellant and on his admission that he had killed Jogesh and buried the dead body at Brahmaputra Chapari, took steps for recovery of the dead body. On his requisition, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Executive Magistrate Mrigen Gogoi to accompany him to the Brahmaputra Chapari for discovery. Accordingly, he along with Magistrate went to the chapari with the accused-Appellant who had shown the pit in presence of the Magistrate whereupon the pit was dug and after digging the pit about half a metre deep, broken human bones and skull were found. At a little distance from the pit the bones below the waist portion were also recovered and with those bones a torn long pant was also found. The evidence of this witness with regard to the discovery is not in itself a proof of involvement of the Appellant. But it is a piece of evidence which when read with the evidence of other witnesses clearly establish that the skull/bones were of Jogesh Doley, the deceased. 11. The accused-Appellant did not make any confessional statement before the Magistrate or any other person. P.W. 4, the father of the deceased stated that the Appellant was brought to him by some youths and after interrogation the Appellant told that Jogesh had been murdered. This witness asked him as to why he did not inform him about the murder. There was no reply. Thereafter, the Appellant was handed over to the Village Defence Party. The ejahar was written and this witness signed the same. This witness asked him as to why he did not inform him about the murder. There was no reply. Thereafter, the Appellant was handed over to the Village Defence Party. The ejahar was written and this witness signed the same. The statement made by this witness does not show that the accused-Appellant had admitted or made any statement to the effect that he had murdered Jogesh. However, this witness evinced that after his arrest by the police and on being questioned the Appellant had admitted that he had taken Jogesh to the Brahmaputra Chapari, killed him and buried his dead body under the sand. Thereafter, police took steps for discovery of the dead body. P.W. 7 Kanak Doley stated that on being questioned, the Appellant said that he had sent Jogesh to Namchai and that he would return after 2/3 days. No confession had been made by the accused-appellant before this witness. In fact the evidence on record do not prove that at any point of time the Appellant had made confessional statement to any of the witnesses. 12. The following circumstances emerge from the evidence on record: (i) P.W. 4, the father of the deceased told that the Appellant had called out his son Jogesh from him house. This statement could not be successfully assailed except byway of suggestion. (ii) The accused-Appellant told P.W. 4 that "Jogesh had been murdered". This statement was made after about a month from the date when Jogesh disappeared. (iii) The Appellant had led the police to the Brahmaputra Chapari and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried. (iv) As pointed out by the accused-Appellant, human skull/bones with wearing apparels and a piece of pant attached with the bones below the waist portion were recovered and identified as that of the deceased. (v) The accused-Appellant told P.W. 7 that he had sent Jogesh to Namchai and that he would return after 2/3 days. (vi) The statement made by the accused-Appellant to P.W. 4 that Jogesh had been murdered indicates that he knew that Jogesh was no more alive and he had the knowledge of his killing. But despite that, he did not inform anybody about this before he was questioned. His admission before P.W. 7 that he had sent Jogesh to Namchai shows that the Appellant was in the company of Jogesh before his disappearance. 13. But despite that, he did not inform anybody about this before he was questioned. His admission before P.W. 7 that he had sent Jogesh to Namchai shows that the Appellant was in the company of Jogesh before his disappearance. 13. The discovery of the human skull/bones with wearing apparels of the deceased at the instance of the accused-Appellant is corroborative of the fact that he was in the company of the deceased immediate before his disappearance. His failure to disclose that Jogesh had been murdered for about a month and his subsequent statement that he had sent Jogesh to Namchai read together goes to show that it was he who had committed the murder of Jogesh. 14. In his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellant had stated that he was taken from his home, tied and handed over to the police. Thereafter, he was taken to Nitaipukhuri P.S. The Appellant further stated that the members of the Missing community had discovered the dead body and he had no knowledge about it. 15. D.W. 1 Sundor Dhar Lahan, a covillager stated that two persons from the Miri Community approached him along with the accused-Appellant and wanted him to settle the dispute and, accordingly, he informed that he would hold the trial. Nothing happened thereafter. This witness came to know after a few days that the Appellant was taken to Barbaruah P.S. The evidence of this witness does not dislodge the circumstances emerging from the evidence on record. Therefore, the observation about the culpability of the Appellant recorded hereinbefore stands unassailed. 16. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2003) 9 SCC 67 argued that the circumstances do not form a chain leading to the conclusion that none other than the Appellant had committed the crime. 17. In Anil Kumar Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: 8. It is well settled that in order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the accused and the circumstances cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, however strong, to take the place of proof. A mere moral conviction or a suspicion however grave it may be cannot take the place of proof. 18. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above settles the position of law. In the instant case, the circumstances captioned above indicates that the deceased was in the company of the Appellant before his disappearance and that skull and bones along with the wearing apparels were recovered at his instance and duly identified by the wife and the father of the deceased. Besides, he was aware of the death of the deceased but he kept mum till interrogated by the villagers. These circumstances, in our considered opinion, form the chain leading to the conclusion of guilt against the accused-Appellant. 19. There is Anr. aspect of the matter. Admittedly, there is delay of about one month in lodging the F.I.R. In fact, P.W. 4, the father of the deceased ought to have submitted at least a missing report before the police immediately. But it appears that they were in search of their son and after interrogation of the accused-Appellant on suspicion came to know about the murder of his son and then lodged the F.I.R. In view of the discussion above this delay will not be fatal to the prosecution. 20. We find no merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.