JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. In this criminal appeal, five Appellants herein, who have been consigned to life imprisonment for murder of one Chaya Munda, have called in question correctness of the judgment dated 7.8.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions Trial No. 87(ST/S)99, whereby all the five Appellants have been convicted under Section 302/201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. We have heard Mr. D. Guha, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution version in brief shows that on 23.5.1999 the deceased Chaya Munda, resident of Jirania came to visit his brother Mangal Munda (No. 3) in Ludhua Tea Estate. After dinner in the house of his brother, Chaya Munda went to the house of Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5) his uncle, to sleep there as in the house of his brother there was shortage of accommodation. At about 12.00 p.m. when he was sleeping in his uncle's house, the Appellant Mangal Munda (No. 1) came to the house of Sarkar Munda, woke him up and wanted to know where Chaya Munda was sleeping. At that time, Mangal Munda (No. 2) was present with Mangal Munda (No. 1). Then Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) entered into the hut of Sarkar Munda, went near the bed of Chaya Munda, woke him up and took him away from the house of Sarkar Munda. The deceased did not return that night. In the following morning Sarkar Munda informed Mangal Munda (No. 3), the brother of the deceased that his brother had left the house on the same night. Some time after Tapan Das (P.W. 2), the neighbour, informed brother of the deceased, Mangal Munda (No. 3) that Milon Munda, one of the Appellants herein, disclosed to him that he along with others had committed one murder of a person and buried him because he was a bully created trouble for them in their village. Then the labourers of the garden caught hold of said Milon Munda. In presence of all, he confessed that he along with four others had murdered Chaya Munda. After that, Mangal Munda (No. 3) lodged the First Information Report (Ext. P/1) with Sabroom Police Station on 24.5.1999. During investigation, Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5) gave a statement (Ext.P/8) recorded by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. In presence of all, he confessed that he along with four others had murdered Chaya Munda. After that, Mangal Munda (No. 3) lodged the First Information Report (Ext. P/1) with Sabroom Police Station on 24.5.1999. During investigation, Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5) gave a statement (Ext.P/8) recorded by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. In that statement he disclosed the names of Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2), who had taken away the deceased from his house on the night of 23.5.1999. The extra judicial confession made by the Appellants herein to Tapan Das (P.W. 2), Subhash Das (P.W.3) were recorded by the Investigating Police Officer under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, but both the P.Ws when examined before the court denied to have made such type of statement. However, police arrested Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda on 24.5.1999 from the 'hawa ghar' of the tea estate and at about 10.00 p.m. they led the Executive Magistrate (P.W. 9) and the Police Officer (P.W. 10) along with others to the place where deadbody of the deceased was buried. It was a place near the house of Kali Kumar Tripura (P.W. 8). The deadbody was disinterred and post mortemed, showing death of the deceased due to injury on head and other parts of the body. On 26.5.1999 other two Appellants, Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Ram Charan Munda were arrested. They had given the weapons of murder to the police officer from the dwelling hut of Milon Munda, which were seized. They confessed that they were also with other three Appellants participating in the act of murdering Chaya Munda. Though the deadbody was already recovered as shown by other three Appellants, both Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Ram Charan Munda also had shown the place where the deceased was buried. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence narrated above, the investigation was closed with a charge sheet against all the five Appellants under Section 302/201 and 34 IPC. 4. During the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, all the prosecution witnesses including the brother of the deceased who lodged the First Information Report turned hostile as they retracted from their statements given to the police officer during investigation. 4. During the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, all the prosecution witnesses including the brother of the deceased who lodged the First Information Report turned hostile as they retracted from their statements given to the police officer during investigation. Confronted with the fact that Chaya Munda was done to death on the same day when he came from his village Jirania to visit his younger brother and a group of witnesses turning hostile, it became a tough job for the learned trial court to find out the grain of truth from the chaff of falsehood for roping in the real assailants at a time when ethical values are on the sharp decline. It is difficult to bring out truth from the unwilling witnesses who are often found to be susceptible to allurements of money, or other favour. Threat to life or property is another very important factor overpowering witnesses whose memory of the occurrence fades with the passage of time, more so when after a long period of time the cases are taken up for trial. Situated thus, the learned trial court proceeded to appreciate the evidence and materials on record to bring to book the real assailants of the murder of Chaya Munda. 5. Firstly, the FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased Mangal Munda (No. 3), who claimed therein that he could learn from his neighbour Tapan Das (P.W. 2) that Appellant Milon Munda had confessed to him that he along with others had committed the murder. Thereafter, the labourers of the garden caught hold of Milon Munda. In presence of all, he confessed that five of them together had murdered Chaya Munda. In his deposition before the court, he denied to have made such statement that Tapan Das (P.W. 2) informed him about the disclosure by Milon Munda. Though he tried to save the assailants of his own brother by such denial, he did not deny the other statement made in the FIR that when Milon Munda was caught and brought by the labourers of the garden he made a confession that he along with others had committed the murder. This part of his statement in the FIR remained undenied. This part of his statement in the FIR remained undenied. Though statement made in the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence which is, however, undoubtedly regarded as a strong corroborating evidence, it is to be seen whether involvement of Milon Munda as per his extrajudicial confession to the informant and other labourers when he was caught and brought before them as stated in the FIR could lend support to the other circumstantial evidence. 6. Tapan Das (P.W. 2) denied to have made any statement to police though such a statement was recorded by the Investigating Police Officer under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. He was confronted with his earlier statement which is marked as Ext. P/3. According to that statement which was recorded by the investigating police officer accused Bishu Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 1), Mangal Munda (No. 2) Ram Charan Munda and Milon Munda planned to murder Chaya Munda and in pursuance to that plan, Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) lifted the deceased from the house of Sarkar Munda, made him to drink liquor and then on the way all of them had assaulted with lathi and spade putting him to death. Thereafter, his deadbody was buried inside the nearby jungle. The witness further stated in Ext. P.3/1 that the accused persons in his presence had confessed that they had committed the murder. Thereafter, the accused persons namely, Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda were arrested and while in custody they had shown the police, the Executive Magistrate and others the place where they had buried the deadbody of Chaya Munda. They disinterred the deadbody and expressed that they had buried the deadbody there, after committing the murder. 7. Subhash Das (P.W. 3) was also a witness to the discovery of the deadbody. Though he admitted that he had made a statement to police which was recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied that he made any indication in that statement that Milon Munda had confessed to him that he along with four others namely, Bishu Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 1), Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Ram Charan Munda had committed the murder after lifting the deceased from the house of Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5). Similarly, Nakul Das (P.W. 4) and Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5) also turned hostile and denied that the accused persons did make any confession to them. Thus, all the five witnesses as seen above were obviously won over as they were more anxious to save the offenders rather than punish them. But Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5), the uncle of the deceased, from whose house the deceased was picked up, admitted that he had given a statement to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate which was recorded under Section 164(5) Code of Criminal Procedure and marked as Ext. P/8. It is noticed from the above statement of Sarkar Munda that, Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) had picked up the deceased at midnight from the house and thereafter he did not return. If this evidence is taken as 'last scene evidence', the two Appellants Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) have no escape as correctly held by learned trial court. 8. Sri Jagannath Das (P.W. 9) is the Executive Magistrate, who was present when the accuseds had shown the spot where the deadbody was buried. This respectable witness had given a certificate after the deadbody was disinterred. The said certificate has been marked as Ext.P/11, the evidentiary value of which could not be diminished by cross-examination. This document (Ext. P/11) states that Milon Munda, Bishu Munda and Mangal Munda (No. 2) while in police custody stated voluntarily that on the previous night they along with two others had done to death one Chaya Munda of Jirania and concealed the deadbody inside the nearby jungle. After making the statement they had shown the actual place of murder as well as concealment of the deadbody. They led the Executive Magistrate and others to the place of concealment wherefrom the deadbody was disinterred. It appears from this document that Milon Munda, Bishu Munda and Mangal Munda (No. 2) had confessed both the offences of murder and concealment of the deadbody. As we have noticed above from Ext. P/8, the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Code of Criminal Procedure of Sarkar Munda, which has not been retracted, Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) had lifted the deceased from the house of Sarkar Munda. Thus, Ext. P/9 and Ext. As we have noticed above from Ext. P/8, the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Code of Criminal Procedure of Sarkar Munda, which has not been retracted, Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) had lifted the deceased from the house of Sarkar Munda. Thus, Ext. P/9 and Ext. P/11 if read together, it would appear that Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 1), Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda could be held to be directly involved in the murder of the deceased. These two documents are further corroborated by the statement recorded in the FIR and the confronted portion of the statement of P.W. 2 recorded by police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been marked as Ext. P/3 regarding involvement of the Appellants herein. 9. It has been strongly and strenuously argued by learned Counsel for the Appellants that statements leading to the discovery of deadbody or the weapons of offence are not admissible evidence, as such statements were not recorded by the Investigating Police Officer which is the essential legal requirements as per provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no dispute that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only such statement to police following which any discovery is made is admissible in evidence. No other statement to police by the accused persons is admissible. But here, in the case on hand, the prosecution has not sought to admit into evidence any statement by the accused to the police as no such statement was at all recorded. Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be pressed into service only when prosecution seeks to admit into evidence any statement of the accused persons made in custody of police following which any discovery is made. This provision does not in any way say that the actual discovery by the accused persons itself has no evidential value. The three accused persons namely, Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda had not only made extra judicial confession but shown the place where the deadbody was buried. The knowledge of these persons about the place where the deadbody was concealed, which is evident and eloquent from their action cannot be said to have no evidential value. Thus, this argument on the basis of Section 27 of the Evidence Act appear to have been totally misplaced. 10. The knowledge of these persons about the place where the deadbody was concealed, which is evident and eloquent from their action cannot be said to have no evidential value. Thus, this argument on the basis of Section 27 of the Evidence Act appear to have been totally misplaced. 10. What surfaces from the above is that, an innocent person who came to Ludhua Tea Garden on 23.5.1999 was done to death on the same night due to past enmity and the occurrence had taken place inside the tea garden at midnight after he was made to drink liquor. As none but the assailants were only present in the place of occurrence, it is not expected that any independent witness would at all be available. The unfortunate part of this case is that the brother and the uncle of the deceased also turned hostile for reasons known to them only. They refused to depose what they stated to police immediately after the occurrence, presumably in their anxiety to save the assailants. This change of attitude sadly underlines the decline of ethical values in public life. The Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 , made following observation in para-31: 31. It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces as astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces as astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and musclemen or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time. Long back in Inder Singh and Anr. v. The State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1978) 4 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court observed: Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the guideline, not a fetish and guilty men cannot get away with it because truth suffers from some infirmity when projected through some human processes. In State of U.P. v. Anil Singh reported in AIR 1988 SC 1998 , the observation of the Supreme Court reads: Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73 , the aims of upholding the justice was highlighted in the following words: Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. As regards removing chaff from the grain in order to make the truth shine, the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 428 , held thus: The courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. v. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 428 , held thus: The courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit, to find out the truth. It means on the one hand that no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see that no person committing an offence should go scot-free. If in spite of such effort, suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. 11. Anxiety of the court being not to reduce the criminal justice system to a dead-wood or sterile at a time when ratio of offenders escaping with impunity is alarming, greater caution and closer examination of the evidence and materials on record are to be employed in the exercise of appreciation of evidence to be undertaken by the courts in order to knit together pieces of evidence strewn allover to present a complete story. It would appear from the case on hand that Sarkar Munda (P.W. 5) did not deny the statement he made to the Magistrate under Section 164(5) Code of Criminal Procedure, or its correctness according to which Mangal Munda (No. 1) and Mangal Munda (No. 2) had visited his house at midnight and picked up the deceased to leave for unknown destination. The deceased did not return. He was killed same night. But in his deposition before the court, he refused to involve any of the Appellants though his statement recorded by the Magistrate shows involvement of the above two Appellants. The other documentary evidence is Ext. P/11, which was prepared by the Executive Magistrate recording inculpatory statements of Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda who admitted that they along with two others committed the murder and buried the deadbody. The other documentary evidence is Ext. P/11, which was prepared by the Executive Magistrate recording inculpatory statements of Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda who admitted that they along with two others committed the murder and buried the deadbody. Thus, these two documents recorded by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate clearly show involvement of Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 1), Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda. Again, discovery of the deadbody of the deceased by Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda corroborate their involvement as revealed from the above two documents. If the discovery part, last scene evidence (Ext.P/9) and extrajudicial confession (Ext. P/11) are taken together they would also find corroboration from the confronted portion of the statement of P.W. 2 which is marked as Ext. P. 3/1. But, as regards involvement of the 5th accused Ram Charan Munda, who was not in the 'last scene evidence' in the statement of P.W. 5 (Ext. P/7) and the document prepared by the Executive Magistrate (Ext.P/11), he was also not in the evidence of discovery of the deadbody shown by Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda. The only evidence against him is that on 26.5.1999 he along with Mangal Munda (No. 1) were arrested by police and both of them had given the weapons of the offence to the Investigating Police Officer, which were seized. But, this alone cannot be sufficient for convicting the said Appellant Ram Charan Munda. 12. For the discussion aforementioned, we are of the considered view that there is no reason for us to interfere with the conviction and sentence of Milon Munda, Mangal Munda (No. 1), Mangal Munda (No. 2) and Bishu Munda and, therefore, the appeal against their conviction and sentence has no merit, which we accordingly dismiss. However, we are of the view that the evidence and materials on record have failed to make out a case beyond reasonable doubt to convict Ram Charan Munda and, therefore, the appeal against his conviction and sentence by the impugned judgment is hereby allowed. We, accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of Ram Charan Munda and set him at liberty. Appeal allowed