JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 27.07.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial Case No. 124 (W.T/A) 99. 3. The three accused-Appellants before us and approver Bijit @ Mon Banik are young people residing at Agartala and at some point of time, they decided to earn some money for themselves may be easy money, by kidnapping or abducting some one and thereafter collecting ransom for the same. Few names were considered and rejected and thereafter, they decided to abduct Santanu Chakraborty for the above purpose. Santanu had just completed his Class-XII examination and he was a friend of accused Rajesh Saha. On the evening of 24.04.99, Rajesh Saha came to the house of Santanu and talked and made agreeable him to go to Bishalgarh, on the same evening. Accordingly Santanu went out with Rajesh Saha in the latter's scooter after informing the family members that he will be returning around 9 P.M. The family members awaited for some time but thereafter they had their meal, presuming that Santanu might have stayed back in the house of his friend. As Santanu did not turn up on the next day morning also, a missing entry was given at Battala Police Out Post. Thereafter, Santanu's father Dulal Chandra Chakraborty (P.W. 1) received a telephonic call in the house of neighbour Swadesh Ranjan Sharma (P.W. 23) and the caller told him that his son had been kidnapped and a ransom of Rs. 5 Lakhs is required for releasing his son. After some time, another call was received stating that ransom will be Rs. 10 lakhs and in case, they inform police, they will kill Santanu. Out of fear, the family members did not inform police and awaited for further call. But as no phone call came, after discussion, the matter was informed to police around 8 P.M. Ext. P (1) is the said FIR. Thereafter, police picked up accused Rajesh Saha from his father-in-law's house and interrogated him and thereafter they picked up accused Titu Chakraborty. Both the accused were interrogated and the third accused Ramen Majumder was picked up from his house. P (1) is the said FIR. Thereafter, police picked up accused Rajesh Saha from his father-in-law's house and interrogated him and thereafter they picked up accused Titu Chakraborty. Both the accused were interrogated and the third accused Ramen Majumder was picked up from his house. The accused persons told police as to how they murdered Santanu and they also told police that they will be able to show the place where the dead body has been concealed. They also told police about involvement of another accused Mon Banik (P.W. 24). The family members of Santanu were informed and Rakhal Chakraborty (P.W. 5), Tapan Chakraborty (P.W. 19) and Swadesh Ranjan Sharma (P.W. 23) arrived at the Police Station. The accused persons informed police that the dead body has been kept concealed at Karmakar Tilla. Thereafter, police picked up P.W. 24 from the house. P.W. 24 also confessed his guilt and made a statement regarding concealment of the dead body. All the four persons were taken to Karmakar Tilla and thereafter the neighbouring witnesses were called and in their presence, the four persons led police to the place where Santanu was allegedly killed and buried. Thereafter, the four persons led police to the middle of the pond and a sketch map of the same (Ext. P-20, P-21) were prepared. Accused persons got down into the pond and brought out the dead body after removing the mud as there was no water in the pond. The photographs were taken and thereafter inquest was held. The dead body was sent for Post Mortem examination. 4. Dr. Mridul Das (P.W. 22) held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found as follows: 1. Horizontal bruise mark on the back of the neck measuring 3" x 2". On dissection I have found fracture and dislocation of 1st and 2nd vertebrae. I have also found cerebellar and pontine haemorrhage inside. The said injury was grievous in nature and caused by force trauma. 2. Bruise on the scrotal sac mainly over left side measuring 4" x 2". On dissection I have found haematoma due to bleeding inside the scrotal sac. The injury number No. 2 is also grievous in nature and caused by forceful trauma. 3. Bruise on middle aspect of left thigh, measuring 4" x 5". The injury No. 3 was simple in nature. On dissection I have found haematoma due to bleeding inside the scrotal sac. The injury number No. 2 is also grievous in nature and caused by forceful trauma. 3. Bruise on middle aspect of left thigh, measuring 4" x 5". The injury No. 3 was simple in nature. On examination of the head and neck except injuries mentioned earlier I have found that the dead body started decomposition. On examination of the chest I have found the sign of decomposition of the body. On dissection of stomach I have found 30 ML. Yellowish semi solid foodstuffs with smell of decomposition. I did not find any other foul smell in the stomach. Other organs of abdomen started decomposition. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to injury Nos. 1 and 2 which were ante mortem in nature. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the death occurred in between 24/48 hours prior to the holding of Post Mortem examination. In view of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with the medical evidence, the death of the deceased Santanu as a result of the injury sustained by him has been well established and the death as such has not been seriously challenged before us. 6. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses and there were as many as 21 paper exhibits and 13 other exhibits. 7. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution has relied on the evidence of the approver (P.W. 24) and the circumstantial evidence. 8. Before considering the approver's evidence (P.W. 24) Bijit Banik @ Mon, we may have a look on the other materials/circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution. These are: (1) Last seen together. (2) Telephone calls before demanding ransom and telephone call voucher. (3) Statement Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding discovery of the dead body. (4) Scooter belonged to Rajesh Saha. (5) According to the medical evidence, the fatal injury No. 2 can be caused by kick boxing. (6) Prosecution has brought out materials to show that accused Titu Chakraborty is an expert coach in kick boxing. 9. So far the circumstance of last seen together is concerned, there is evidence of Mousami Chakraborty (P.W. 2) and Sandhya Bhattacharjee (P.W. 18), the sister and mother of the deceased. (6) Prosecution has brought out materials to show that accused Titu Chakraborty is an expert coach in kick boxing. 9. So far the circumstance of last seen together is concerned, there is evidence of Mousami Chakraborty (P.W. 2) and Sandhya Bhattacharjee (P.W. 18), the sister and mother of the deceased. Accused Rajesh Saha is known to them as he was a friend of Santanu and he used to come to their house. On 24.04.1999 Rajesh came to their house in the evening hours and had a talk with Santanu and thereafter Santanu told his mother that he is going to Bishalgarh along with Rajesh and he would return around 9 P.M. Accused Rajesh had come with a scooter bearing registration No. TR-01-5621. P.W. 2 has, however, deposed that before arrival of Rajesh, two other friends of Santanu, P.W. 4 and P.W. 3 came to their house and they also met accused Rajesh. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have supported the statement of P.W. 2 and they also stated that after arrival of Rajesh, Santanu started dressing up and told them that he is going to Bishalgarh along with Rajesh and thereafter P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 left the place. 10. Besides the above witnesses, we find that there is another witness namely P.W. 13 who had seen Santanu at about 6 P.M. near the petrol pump at Battala and there were two other young boys with Santanu while they were filling petrol in the scooter. On query, Santanu told that he was going to Bishalgarh along with his two friends. Accused Rajesh was not known to P.W. 13 from before. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that if Santanu had gone with Rajesh Saha on the ill-fated evening, this fact should have been specifically mentioned in the FIR; but the FIR is altogether silent and it is merely stated that Santanu had gone out from the house in the evening as usual. However, on perusal of Ext. 1, we find that the fact that accused Rajesh Saha came to their house in a scooter has been mentioned and the informant P.W. 1 also mentioned about the apprehension that Rajesh Saha and his friend might have kidnapped his son. It is also submitted that giving of the registration number of the scooter by the mother seems to be an afterthought. It is also submitted that giving of the registration number of the scooter by the mother seems to be an afterthought. Learned P.P., however, submitted that Rajesh was the friend of Santanu and he used to come to the house of P.W. 18, giving of the scooter number is quite natural. We find from the record that the said scooter belongs to Krishna Das, the father-in-law of the accused Rajesh Saha and the accused was using the said scooter bearing registration No. TR-01-5621. It was seized from the house of Krishna Das vide Ext. 7. 12. So far the circumstance of last seen together is concerned, we find that the deceased Santanu was last seen alive in the company of Rajesh Saha in the evening of 24th April and thereafter, Santanu was killed and that his dead body was dumped at Karmakar tilla. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that non-mentioning of the fact that the deceased had gone out with Rajesh Saha in the G.D. Entry is no doubt an omission; but considering the mental condition of the person lodging such information, not much importance can be placed on such omission so as to throw out the otherwise reliable and convincing evidence as regards the circumstance of last seen together. It may also be mentioned here that accused Rajesh Saha was picked up by police on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1 and as such the above omission is not material. 14. Dulal Chandra Chakraborty (P.W. 1) as well as Swadesh Ranjan Sharma (P.W. 23) have deposed about receipt of two telephone calls from the abductors demanding ransom and the telephone call was made in the house of P.W. 23. Telephone call was made by accused Rajesh Saha. Police seized the telephone voucher (Ext. 4) from the telephone booth owner vide seizure list (Ext. 3) wherein the telephone number of P.W. 23 namely 221635 is mentioned. The informant witness also admitted about the receipt of telephone calls and demand for ransom. 15. Telephone call was made by accused Rajesh Saha. Police seized the telephone voucher (Ext. 4) from the telephone booth owner vide seizure list (Ext. 3) wherein the telephone number of P.W. 23 namely 221635 is mentioned. The informant witness also admitted about the receipt of telephone calls and demand for ransom. 15. As regards the recovery of the dead body of the deceased pursuant to the statement Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is concerned, there is the evidence of the I/O P.W. 27 who has given a detailed statement as to how the accused persons were picked up one after another and how all these accused persons stated before him about the concealment of the dead body at Karmakar tilla and how all these four accused persons led police and other witnesses to Karmakar tilla and recovered the dead body of Santanu which was kept concealed in the pond. P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 are all residents of Purba Laxmibill and they were all picked up by police early in the morning at 5 AM from their respective houses to witness the recovery of the dead body. They saw four accused persons with the police party and these four accused persons led police and the other witnesses to the pond which was covered with mud and pointed out the place on the middle of the pond stating that the dead body is concealed there. Thereafter, the accused persons with the help of sweepers removed the dead body from the mud and after washing the dead body, the inquest was conducted by the I/O. All these witnesses are independent witnesses and they have no relation or connection either with the accused persons or with the family members of the deceased. They have deposed that the accused persons led police and them to the recovery of the dead body. 16. Nitya Gopal Saha (P.W. 10) is the photographer who was picked up by police around 4 A.M. to accompany the police party and the accused persons to Laxmibill for recovery of the dead body. After recovery of the dead body, photographs were taken. There were altogether seven photographs which have been marked as Ext. M.O. 1 series. P.W. 10 has deposed that the dead body was recovered by the accused persons. 17. After recovery of the dead body, photographs were taken. There were altogether seven photographs which have been marked as Ext. M.O. 1 series. P.W. 10 has deposed that the dead body was recovered by the accused persons. 17. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has, however, challenged the recovery of the dead body by stating that the recovery has not been made as required Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and police had prior knowledge about the whereabouts of the dead body and as the dead body was jointly pointed out by the four accused persons, it can not be considered as a recovery Under Section27 of the Evidence Act. In support of the submission, learned Counsel for the Appellants has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Santosh Baruah v. State Unreported Cases (Assam) 460. In the facts of the above case, it was held that in the absence of such statement, it is difficult to hold that the Appellant has narrated about the concealment of the dead body and recovery of the same. 18. In the present case, we find that not to speak about the I/O who has categorically deposed that all the accused persons told him that they have knowledge about the dead body and they will be able to identify the place and recover the dead body, there are other materials on record which supports the oral evidence of the I/O. We also find that the statement of the three accused persons, namely, Rajesh Saha, Titu Chakraborty and Ramen Majumdar were proved and exhibited as Ext. P-17, P-18 and P-19 and the recovery of the dead body has been proved as the accused persons themselves stated that "if we are taken now, then we can show the pond at Karmakar Para of Bishalgarh inside which the dead body of Santanu had been kept". We have perused the statement of the three accused persons recorded by police and find that the accused persons have specifically mentioned in the above statement about the hiding of dead body of Santanu inside the pond and their statement is that they will be able to show the place and recover the dead body which was concealed by themselves. We have perused the statement of the three accused persons recorded by police and find that the accused persons have specifically mentioned in the above statement about the hiding of dead body of Santanu inside the pond and their statement is that they will be able to show the place and recover the dead body which was concealed by themselves. So far the alleged knowledge regarding existence of dead body at Karmakar tilla is concerned, we find that this knowledge came only from the statement of the accused persons and not prior to that. Moreover, the law is well settled that recovery Under Section 27 is not recovery of article pursuant to the statement but it is conscious knowledge of the accused persons. 19. P.W. 22 has deposed that the injury on the person of the deceased can be caused by inflicting kick or karate blow. There is evidence on record that accused Titu Chakraborty is an expert in kick boxer. He is a holder of first Don Black belt and he is the chief instructor technical in charge cum examiner in kick boxing in Tripura. The said certificate was seized by police from the house of the accused Titu Chakraborty vide seizure list (Ext. P-9). 20. Now coming to the evidence of the approver Mon Banik, we find that this witness is a friend of the co-accused Rajesh Saha, Titu Chakraborty and Ramen Majumder. He has deposed that on 11.04.1999 they met in the house of Ramen Majumder where at the instance of accused Rajesh, they took a decision of kidnapping of Rupak Dey and realizing ransom. Thereafter, they met again on 20.04.1999 and it was decided to kidnap Santanu and claim Rs. 5 lakhs out of which Rajesh will claim Rs. 2 lakhs and the rest will get Rs. 1 lakh each. Thereafter, P.W. 24 informed the accused about the place of Karmakar tilla where the dead body can be concealed as the said area is a secluded place. Thereafter, all of them went to the site of secluded place to find whether it is suitable for concealing the dead body. The place was again visited on 23.04.1999. On 24.04.1999 Rajesh asked him to be present at the Bus Stand. Thereafter, Rajesh brought Santanu in a scooter and he has also joined them. Thereafter, all of them went to the site of secluded place to find whether it is suitable for concealing the dead body. The place was again visited on 23.04.1999. On 24.04.1999 Rajesh asked him to be present at the Bus Stand. Thereafter, Rajesh brought Santanu in a scooter and he has also joined them. They got the petrol filled up in the scooter at Battala Petrol Pump where Santanu met one of his accomplice. The scooter belonged to the father-in-law of Rajesh bearing registration No. TR-01-5621. They reached Karmakar tilla where the other co-accused Ramen Majumder was present and the moment Santanu got down from the scooter, Titu Chakraborty gave a karate blow on the neck of Santanu whereupon Santanu fell down on the ground. Rajesh also gave kicks and all of them assaulted Santanu as a result of which Santanu died. Thereafter, with the help of Titu Chakraborty, P.W. 24 dug a hole in the middle of the pond and buried the dead body and washed themselves in the water of the pond and thereafter Rajesh dropped him in the ONGC colony. On 26.04.1999 police went to his house and enquired about Santanu and he confessed his guilt and told police that the dead body has been concealed in the pond at Karmakar tilla and he will be able to show the dead body. When he was brought to the police vehicle which was waiting outside his house, he found accused Rajesh Saha, Titu Chakraborty and Ramen Majumder in the police vehicle. They led police to the spot where the dead body was concealed and on being shown by them, in presence of the police officer and nearby people, they brought out the dead body. Police conducted inquest over the same. 21. P.W. 24 made a confessional statement before the Magistrate Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure on 13.05.1999. While he was in jail, he submitted an application seeking pardon. The Magistrate interrogated him and took his statement on 27.07.1999 and 30.10.1999. 22. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this witness/approver had given different statements before police, Magistrate and the trial and if these statements are analyzed, it will be seen that this witness has made obvious development, now and then and as such the statements can not be relied upon even if the above statements are brought on record. 22. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this witness/approver had given different statements before police, Magistrate and the trial and if these statements are analyzed, it will be seen that this witness has made obvious development, now and then and as such the statements can not be relied upon even if the above statements are brought on record. However, we find that there is no material discrepancy and the broad facts of the case remained more or less same. The witness had stated about the first meeting of the group on 11.04.1999, where a proposal was considered for kidnapping Rupak Dey and thereafter the proposal of kidnapping Santanu was taken and an agreement was entered into between the parties, how the booty is to be shared. According to police, in his earlier statement P.W. 24 stated that Rajesh gave a call at his maternal uncle's house at Bardwali at about 8.30 A.M. on 20.04.99 whereas in his deposition, he has stated that telephone call was made in the house of neighbour or maternal uncle. We find that the alleged variations in the above statements are natural which arise when a person makes a statement time and again. They do not go at the root of the matter and this happens due to lapse of time or when a person or witness uses different language or remembers something at the time of making of the statement. We have carefully perused all the statements of this witness and find that the witness has withstood his testimony well and although he has been cross examined at length; nothing has come out to show that he is making a false and concocted story. The broad facts of the case remains the same and there is no variation. The eagerness or tendency of the witness to say something as regards his own defence, is a natural tendency of a person and this action or attempt on the part of the witness to give better details during trial can not be considered as improvement and there is no room for any doubt or suspicion that this witness is trying to improve his version of story in this case. In this connection, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ranadhir Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 2000 SC 908 are pertinent. 23. In this connection, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ranadhir Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 2000 SC 908 are pertinent. 23. The law as regards the evidence of accomplice was considered by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions and the learned Counsel for the Appellants has referred to the decisions in the cases reported in AIR 1949 P.C. 257 : AIR 1968 SC 832 and (2002) 1 GLR 522. 24. We have examined the evidence of P.W. 24 and find that his evidence has been corroborated on material points by the other evidence on record. The four accused persons conspired to kidnap Santanu for ransom and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy. Santanu was kidnapped and killed and thereafter ransom was demanded. The prosecution evidence that Santanu was brought out from his house by accused Rajesh Saha and that P.W. 13 met Santanu and the accused persons at Battala Petrol Pump and later on telephones calls were made to the house of P.W. 23 from a PCO are all corroborated by the oral and medical evidence on record. The gruesome murder was committed by dealing Karate blow by expert Titu Chakraborty and this has been supported by the medical evidence on record. Likewise, the statement regarding concealment of the dead body and recovery of the same in Laxmibill Karmakar tilla has been fully corroborated by the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. 25. This is a case of criminal conspiracy and in such cases, the Apex Court also held, in a catena of decisions, that there can not be any direct evidence and it has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence. However, in the present case, we have the evidence of the approver also. 26. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the accused-Appellants were not properly questioned and their state-merits Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure were not properly recorded and Exts. 17, 18 and 19 i.e., statements of the accused persons recorded Under Section161 Code of Criminal Procedure and proved to establish the recovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were not specifically put to the accused persons and as such the above statements can not be considered. 17, 18 and 19 i.e., statements of the accused persons recorded Under Section161 Code of Criminal Procedure and proved to establish the recovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were not specifically put to the accused persons and as such the above statements can not be considered. In support of the above, learned Counsel for the Appellants has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 315 and AIR 1984 SC 1622 . 27. We have perused the statements of the accused persons recorded Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and find that the statements were recorded in details and as many as 133 questions were put to the accused Rajesh Saha whereas 86 questions were put to accused Titu Chakraborty and Ramen Majumder each. The accused persons took the plea of silence by merely stating that this is false or they can not say and they have not come up with any specific plea. We also provided an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the Appellants to make further submission or give any further explanation on behalf of the accused persons in respect of the materials or circumstances appearing against them in the present case; but nothing was submitted. 28. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that police remained satisfied with the statement made by P.W. 24 and other witnesses and sought conviction of the accused persons on such confession; but failed to make any investigation as required under the law. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has drawn our attention to the observations of the Court in the case reported in 1971 Crl.L.J. 1595. However, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish and bring home the charge against all the accused persons and there is no room for any doubt or any suspicion that these accused persons along with P.W. 24 had entered into a criminal conspiracy to abduct Santanu and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, they abducted Santanu and killed him and concealed the dead body and thereafter they tried to collect ransom. Hence, the conviction of the accused-Appellants Under Section120B/302/34/364(A) and 201 IPC is hereby affirmed. The trial Court has sentenced the accused persons as below. Hence, the conviction of the accused-Appellants Under Section120B/302/34/364(A) and 201 IPC is hereby affirmed. The trial Court has sentenced the accused persons as below. Accused Rajesh Saha- (A) For the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default further imprisonment for six months. (B) For the offence Under Section 120B IPC imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default further imprisonment for five months. (C) For the offence Under Section 364(A) IPC imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default further imprisonment for three months. (D) For the offence Under Section 201 IPC imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default further imprisonment for three months. 29. All the sentences were directed to run consecutively. Accused Titu Chakraborty and Ramen Majumder- (A) For the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each in default further imprisonment for six months. (B) For the offence Under Section 120B IPC imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each in default further imprisonment for five months. (C) For the offence Under Section 364(A) IPC imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each in default further imprisonment for five months. (D) For the offence Under Section 201 IPC imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default further imprisonment for three months. 30. All the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. 31. On consideration of the fact that the prime motive behind the commission of such gruesome murder where a young life has been nipped in the bud, to earn easy money, the sentences imposed by the learned trial Court needs no interference except that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Send down the records. Appeal dismissed