JUDGMENT 1. - A girl of seventeen years (suman) was stabbed and throttled to death. This was the graveman of charge out against appellant Pawan Kumar Chaudhary @ Dharamveer. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City vide judgment dated May 31, 2005 convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. This appeal has been filed by the appellant in challenge of the said judgment. 2. We shall state the facts of the case as put forth by the prosecution : Suman was a student of 10th standard. She was residing with her parents. Since there was no electric connection in her house, it was her daily routine to go for the purpose of study to the house of her neighbour Manmohan Singh at around 8 PM, remained there whole night and come back at about 5.30 in the next morning. On May 31, 2003 she, as usual, left her house at 8 PM but did not return back in the next morning. Her parents became panicky and 15 they made hectic enquiry for her. They went to the rented room of the appellant, who used to reach her in the school and for the last one year, was giving private tuition to her. The appellant was not found in the room and it was known that without informing anybody he disappeared. On June 4, 2003 a news item was published in the News-papers about a dead body found in a lonely house of Mansarovar. There upon parents of Suman visited Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur and found that case under section 302/201 IPC was registered against unknown person in connection with a girl who was found murdered in a semi-constructed house No. 69/116. Dead body lying in the mortuary was identified as of Suman by her parents. The police recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and arrested the appellant. On the basis of his disclosure statement to blade of knife allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered from his rented room. Coloured photograph of Suman was also found concealed in the room of appellant under the coarse string Charpoy. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. On the basis of his disclosure statement to blade of knife allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered from his rented room. Coloured photograph of Suman was also found concealed in the room of appellant under the coarse string Charpoy. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 22 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Death of Suman was concededly homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem report (Ex.P-4) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body : 1. Incised wound of size 11/2 x 1/2cm x scalp tissue deep oblique Rt. parietal region over mid line. 2. Two incised wounds of size 1 x1/2cm x through and through over Rt. side upper lip and another incised wound 1/2 x 1/4 cm through and through Lt. side upper lip near mid line both wards. Incised wound of size 11/2 x 11/2 cm x through and through centre of lower lip. Missing of (1)/(1)(2) Rt. upper central tooth and Lt. upper central and lateral incisor teeth with grooving of socket with laceration of both sides of gums upper jaw at missing teeth roots. 5. Abrasion 3 x 2cm It. side chin. 6. Nine incised wounds of size 21/2 cm to 1cm to 112x1/4cm all are skin deep and oblique over front of neck at base and It. clavicular region at places with clotted blood. 7. Multiple abrasions of size 6 x 4 cm to 1 x 1/2 cm on front of chest back of rt. elbow joint, back of It. elbow joint at places both arms and forearm at places. 8. Multiple bruise of size 5 x 3cm to 1 x 1/2 cm both shoulder joint at places. 9. Multiple abrasion of size 11x9 cm to 1 x 1/2 cm on both leg both ankle and feet at places Rt. side black of chest at places. 10. elbow joint at places both arms and forearm at places. 8. Multiple bruise of size 5 x 3cm to 1 x 1/2 cm both shoulder joint at places. 9. Multiple abrasion of size 11x9 cm to 1 x 1/2 cm on both leg both ankle and feet at places Rt. side black of chest at places. 10. Ligature mark all over front of both sides and back of neck middle part brownish in colour grooving and irregular margins present of size 28 cm long and 2cm area in width. It is 3 cm above supra sternalnotch area 7 cm below from centre of chin present. In the opinion of Dr. H.L. Bairwa (Pw.8) the cause of death was asphyxia brought about as a result of strangulation. 4. Since the prosecution founded its case on circumstantial evidence, it is to be examined whether (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been cogently and firmly established. (ii) those circumstances of a definite tendency unerringly pointing 5 towards the guilt of the appellants. (iii) the circumstances. taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and none else. 5. The circumstances on which the reliance was placed by the learned trial court may be summarised thus : (i) Appellant had tutor-taught relationship with Suman. (ii) Near about the time when Suman disappeared, the appellant also absconded. (iii) Coloured photographs of Suman concealed under 15 coarse-string Charpoy was found in the room of the appellant. (iv) Blade of broken knife, allegedly used in commission of offence, was recovered from the room of the appellant at his instance. (v) Appellant gave false explanation about his disappearance. (vi) Appellant did not give explanation about the injuries sustained by him on his hand. 6. It is discerned from the testimony of Dr. Atul Kumar (PW. 3) that on August 7, 2003 he had drawn injury report (Ex.P-2) of the appellant. As per the injury report appellant had sustained a scar on Rt. palmer aspect of 2.5 cm x ⅛ horizontal 3cm below the Rt. index finger base. The scar was six weeks old and it was healed. 7. Atul Kumar (PW. 3) that on August 7, 2003 he had drawn injury report (Ex.P-2) of the appellant. As per the injury report appellant had sustained a scar on Rt. palmer aspect of 2.5 cm x ⅛ horizontal 3cm below the Rt. index finger base. The scar was six weeks old and it was healed. 7. Smt. Kamla (Pw.7), who was a Sweeper of Sector 69, Mansarovar deposed that on asking by neighbours about the foul smell when she entered the skelton house, she saw a dead body. Rakesh Handu (Pw.13), resident of house No. 69/117, Mansarovar deposed that having felt foul smell, he asked sweeper to find out the source of smell. Thereafter Sweeper saw a dead body in a skelton house. The police was informed and dead body of a lady was found in a decomposed State. 8. Pankaj Sharma (Pw.14) in his deposition stated that he was studying in LLB and the appellant was his class-mate. In the month of June, 2003 when the appellant visited his house, there was a bandage over his right palm. The appellant told him that while he was going to the village in a bus, he received injury from the broken glass of the bus. 9. Sneh Kanwar, daughter of Manmohan Singh, (Pw.15) deposed that Dalel Singh, father of Suman, was her neighbour. Suman used to visit her house daily for the purpose of study around 8 PM. She remained in her house till 5.30 AM next morning. On May 31, 2003 Suman came to her house at about 8 PM. She remained in the house whole night and left the house in the morning. Around 7-8 AM brother of Suman came to her house and told her that Suman did not return back. She then went to the house of Suman to meet her mother. Her husband also visited the house of Suman in the evening. On the third day she received a telephonic call came from tutor of Suman who wanted to have a talk with Suman. She had gone to mortuary and identified the dead body of Suman. 10. Testimony of Sneh Kanwar gets corroboration from the evidence of so Manmohan Singh (Pw.16). Her husband also visited the house of Suman in the evening. On the third day she received a telephonic call came from tutor of Suman who wanted to have a talk with Suman. She had gone to mortuary and identified the dead body of Suman. 10. Testimony of Sneh Kanwar gets corroboration from the evidence of so Manmohan Singh (Pw.16). Dalel Singh (Pw.18) and Om Kanwar (Pw.19) who deposed that Suman was their daughter and because they did not have electric connection in their house, Suman used to visit the house of Sneh Kanwar for the purpose of study. Continuously for the last three years Suman used to leave their house around 8 PM. She remained whole night in the house of Sneh Kanwar and came back in the next morning at 5.30 AM. Appellant was her tutor in the school and used to give her private tuition in the house. Digvijay Singh (Pw.21), brother of Suman, deposed that on May 31, 2003 the appellant had visited his house and he had seen the appellant talking with Suman. 11. Arjun Ram (Pw,22) recovered the dead body and drew Site plan io Ex.P-8. He lifted blood stained soil vide memo Ex.P-9. One pair of Hawai-Chappal got recovered vide memo Ex.P-11. Handle of knife was found lying near the dead body. Arjun Ram recovered the handle vide memo Ex.P-6. In his deposition Arjun Ram stated that the deceased used to sleep in the house of her uncle Manmohan Singh and on the date of incident 15 appellant was present in his rented room : " vM+ksl iM+ksl ds yksxksa ls ;g irk fd;k Fkk ftlls lkeus vk;k Fkk fd ?kVuk okys fnu iou pkS/kjh vius fdjk, ds edku esa ekStwn ns[kk x;k FkkA " He also gave explanation about recording the statement of Dalel Singh and Om Kanwar after a long delay. According to him they took the dead body of Suman to their village for last rites and remained there. That is why he could not record their police statements forthwith. He also stated that he got recovered blade of knife, photograph and STD slip from the locked room of house No. 61/166 Mansarovar Jaipur. 12. The appellant was arrested on July 3, 2003 vide memo Ex,R1 and on the basis of his disclosure statement, blade of the knife was recovered from his rented room vide memo Ex.P-12. He also stated that he got recovered blade of knife, photograph and STD slip from the locked room of house No. 61/166 Mansarovar Jaipur. 12. The appellant was arrested on July 3, 2003 vide memo Ex,R1 and on the basis of his disclosure statement, blade of the knife was recovered from his rented room vide memo Ex.P-12. Coloured photo of Suman was also recovered at the instance of appellant vide memo Ex.P-13. A diary containing slip of STD also got recovered from the possession of appellant vide memo Ex.P-14. 13. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that alleged recovery so made at the instance of appellant was fake and information allegedly recorded under section 27 Evidence Act could not have been read against the appellant. 14. We have considered the submissions and scanned the relevant 35 memos drawn by the 10. Section 27 of the Evidence Act lays down an exception to the rule that a confession made by an accused person whilst he is in custody must be excluded from evidence and permits the admission of such a confession under the conditions prescribed but it. The land i India on the subject dealt with in Section 27 is sider than the common law in England. It appears from the provisions of Section 27 that it has been taken bodily from the English law. In both the laws there is a greater solicitude for a person who makes a statement has not been brought home to him then for one who knows of the danger. In English Law, the caution gives him a necessary warning and in India the fact of his being in custody of a police officer serves the purpose. 15. Section 27 seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given some guarantee is afforded thereby than the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. It is not correct to presume that information given by so the accused under section 27 is compelled testimony, so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 16. It is not correct to presume that information given by so the accused under section 27 is compelled testimony, so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 16. In Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 400 the Apex Court held that the evidence of circumstance simpliciter that an accused led a police officer and pointed out the place where weapon was found hidden, would be admissible as conduct, under section 8, irrespective of whether any statement made by him contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27. 17. Their Lordships of the Supreme court in Vijender v. State of Delhi (supra) had occasion to consider section 27 of Evidence Act and observed as under : (Para 17) "Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording to the evidence of the above witnesses is that of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Evidence was led through the above three police witnesses that in consequence of information received from three appellants on June 30, 1992 they discovered the pace were the dead body of Khurshid was thrown. As already noticed, the dead 15 body of Khurshid was recovered on June 27, 1992 and therefore the question of discovery of the place where it was thrown thereafter could not arise. Under section 27 of the Evidence Act if an information given by the accused leads to the discovery of a fact which is the direct outcome of such information then only it would be evidence but when the fact has already been discovered as in the instant case evidence could not be led in respect thereof." 18. In State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh (supra) the Supreme Court indicated as under (Para 21) "....Since the dead body was recovered on the basis of information already known, Section 27 of the Evidence Act has no application. As observed by this Court in Aheer Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 if a recovery of the incriminating articles alleged to have been made by the accused while in custody is inadmissible in evidence if the police already knew where they were hidden. That takes the cause out of the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 19. That takes the cause out of the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 19. In Rammi v. State of MP, (1999) 8 SCC 649 , the Apex Court held thus : (Paras 11 & 12) "Regarding the recovery of weapons, the prosecution could utilise statements attributed to the accused no the basis of which recovery of certain weapons was effected. Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits so much of information which lead to the discovery of a fact to be admitted in evidence. Here the fact discovered by the police was that the accused had hidden the blood stained weapons. In that sphere what could have been admitted in evidence is only that part of the information which the accused had furnished to the police officer and which led to the recovery of the weapons." "True, such information is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but admissibility alone would no render the evidence, pertaining to the above information, reliable. While testing the reliability of such evidence the court has to see whether it was voluntarily stated by the accused." 20. In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, 1972 (1) SCC 249 the Apex Court interpreted Section 27 of Evidence Act thus : "A fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 must refer to a material fact to which the information directly relates. In order to render the information admissible the fact discovered must be relevant and must have been such that it constitutes the information through which the discovery was made. What should discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the fact with each other as the cause and effect' that information which does not distinctly connect with the fact discovered or that portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible under Section 27 and cannot be proved. The concealment of the fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that the information was true. The concealment of the fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that the information was true. No witness with whom some material fact, such as the weapon of murder, stolen property or other incriminating article is not hidden sold or kept and which is unknown to the police can be said to be discovered as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused. What makes the information leading the discovery of the witness admissible is the discovery from him of the thing sold to him or hidden or kept with him which the police did not know until the information was furnished to them by the accused." 21. In Ghanshyam Das v. State of Assam, (2005) 13 SCC 387 the Supreme Court held that evidence regarding pointing the place where weapon was thrown and its recovery can be looked into to throw light on the conduct of accused under section 8. It was observed as under : (Para 5) "Another incriminating which corroborates the case of the prosecution is that the appellant led the 10 PW. 12 to Kharbanga riverside and pointed out the place where he had thrown away the Khukri. According to the evidence of PW. 12 the 10 and PW. 6, the Khukri was recovered from the river with the help of a driver. Though both the courts have eschewed this circumstances from consideration on the ground that no information was recorded by PW. 12 the 10 so as to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act, we are of the view that the evidence of PW. 12 and PW. 6 to the effect that the accused led them to the spot and pointed out the place where the Khukri was thrown, which facts stands confirmed by its recovery, can be looked into the throw light on the conduct of the accused under section 8 of the Evidence Act." 22. In addition to the evidence of recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of appellant, the prosecution has examined Pankaj Sharma (Pw.14) to establish the fact that the appellant received injuries on his hands at the time of incident. By adducing the evidence of Sneh Kanwar (Pw.15) the prosecution has established that appellant made a phone call to her as he wanted to have talk with Suman. By adducing the evidence of Sneh Kanwar (Pw.15) the prosecution has established that appellant made a phone call to her as he wanted to have talk with Suman. It appears that the call was made deliberately to show that the appellant did not meet Suman. The fact that telephonic call was made by the appellant gets corroboration by the recovery of STD slip at the instance of the appellant. Keeping coloured photograph of Suman concealed in the Charpoy of his rooms speaks volumes about the so motive of appellant. Why a male teacher would keep photograph of his female taught? This question could not be answered by the appellant. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is established that on the date of incident the appellant was very much at Jaipur and absconded soon after the incident. He was arrested on July 3, 2003 i.e. after 33 days of the incident. Absconding from the scene for over a month, would establish the guilt of the appellant and rule out hypothesis of innocence. The injury on the palm received by the appellant six weeks back from the date of medical examination, is itself hardly sufficient to warrant a conviction but false explanation given by him about the injury to his friend Pankaj Sharma may be taken into consideration as an additional link to the chain of events presented by the prosecution. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant then urged that the Investigating Officer falsely implicated the appellant and no reliance could be placed on his testimony. We find no substance in this submission. We cannot approach the action of Investigating Officers with initial distrust. The investigating Officers had no enmity with the appellant. Even if independent person fails to support the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused, it cannot be presumed that recovery is untrustworthy. The Supreme Court in State Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652 indicated in para 21 thus : "It is for the accused, through cross examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. The Supreme Court in State Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652 indicated in para 21 thus : "It is for the accused, through cross examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions." 24. From the material on record, the prosecution is able to establish following circumstances : (i) At the time of incident the appellant was the tutor of deceased. He visited the house of deceased on May 31, 2003 and had a talk with the deceased. (ii) On the date of incident the appellant was seen at his room but thereafter he absconded and could only be nabbed after 33 days. (iii) Blade of the knife which was recovered at the instance of appellant from his room, was the part of handle found lying near the dead body. (iv) Appellant sustained injuries on his palm and he gave false explanation that he received injuries from window-glass of the bus. (v) After Suman disappeared the appellant gave a telephonic call to Sneh Kanwar that he wanted to talk with Suman. The appellant being a teacher of Suman, knew that Suman used to visit the house of Sneh Kanwar and by giving telephonic call he wanted to show that he did not know that Suman disappeared. 45 (vi) Coloured photograph of Suman was found concealed under the Charpoy in the room of appellant. The appellant failed to explain as.to why he kept the photograph of his taught. (vii) Appellant at the time of incident was residing in house No. 61/166 Mansarovar Jaipur and dead body of Suman was also so found in semi-constructed house No. 69/116 at Mansarovar Jaipur. 25. The appellant failed to explain as.to why he kept the photograph of his taught. (vii) Appellant at the time of incident was residing in house No. 61/166 Mansarovar Jaipur and dead body of Suman was also so found in semi-constructed house No. 69/116 at Mansarovar Jaipur. 25. From the facts established we find that the circumstantial evidence in the instant case does not fall short of the required standard of proof. The circumstances so established are consistent with the guilt of appellant and inconsistent with his innocence. All the circumstances exclude with his innocence. All the circumstances exclude with certainty the possibility of guilt of any person other than the appellant. Learned trial Judge in our opinion committed no illegality in convicting the appellant. Possibility that the appellant had committed the crime, cannot be ruled out. 26. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the to same accordingly stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******