JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury and Mrs. K.M. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae representing both the Appellants from jail in Crl. Appl. No. 29(J)/07 and Crl. Appl. No. 84(J)/06 respectively. Also heard Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned PP, Assam. 2. Since both the criminal appeals raise common question of law based on identical facts and situation, they are being taken together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Common facts of the case, in brief, as unfolded by the prosecution, are that the Appellant Sri Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'A-1') kidnapped his own niece Purnima @ Punam (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and made her a human sacrifice so as to cure his disease on the advice of one Ajit Kr. Dutta, the another Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'A-2'). On 4.10.04, at about 4-30 p.m., A-1, uncle of the deceased, who came to the house of PW-7, Smt. Sushila @ Sunita, the mother of the deceased and sister of A-1, taking clothes in a bag with the intention to spend the night in her house, took her little daughter, the deceased towards the shop saying that he would give her biscuit. Thereafter, till the evening, A-1 and the deceased did not return and their whereabouts were also not known. Some of the villagers had gone in search of both the deceased and A-1 but they could not find. Thereafter, the matter was informed in the house of A-1 but the mother of A-1 gave the address of another person, i.e. A-2 to where A-1 might have gone. On such circumstance all the family members, i.e. PW-2, Baban Singh, father of the deceased, PW-3, Sikondar Singh, uncle of the deceased and others made vigorous search of the girl. On the next day morning, PW2 found both A-1 and A-2 in the house of A-2 and when PW-2 asked A-1 about his daughter he told him that he killed the girl and he sacrificed her to the goddess to cure his disease and also admitted that her body was still lying there. He also informed that he sacrificed the girl at Noorbari Tea Estate on being asked by A-2, who was a devotee of goddess Kali. 4. He also informed that he sacrificed the girl at Noorbari Tea Estate on being asked by A-2, who was a devotee of goddess Kali. 4. In this regard, an Ejahar was lodged on 5.10.04 by PW-13, Harendra Nath Bora, Sub-Inspector of Police of Borghat O.P. with the Tezpur Police Station on being informed by I/C of Mahabhairab Police Station and on the basis of the said Ejahar investigation was started. Both the Appellants were arrested. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against both the Appellants under Sections 302/366(A) read with Section 201 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge to whom the case was committed, being triable exclusively by the court of sessions, framed charges against A-1 under Sections 363/302/201 IPC and A-2 was charged under Sections 302/109 IPC to which both the Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and one court witness. Among those witnesses three were official witnesses namely PW-8, Dr. Tilak Bhattacharjee, who held the post-mortem of the deceased, PW-12, Nanda Ram Das, the Investigating Officer (for short 'I/O') and PW-13, Harendra Nath Bora, who lodged the FIR. 6. The trial Court, having meticulously appreciated and properly considered the testimony of those witnesses and also on examination of the materials so exhibited, came to the finding that both the Appellants were found guilty under those sections under which they were charged and accordingly, convicted both the Appellants, i.e. A-1 and A-2. A-1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (for short 'RI') for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, RI for two months. A-1 was also sentenced to RI for 5 years under Section 363 IPC and another RI for 5 years under Section 201 IPC. A-2 was sentenced to RI for life under Sections 302/109 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, RI for another two months. 7. Being aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, both the Appellants preferred these two appeals separately from jail. 8. Admittedly, there was no eyewitness to prove the case of the prosecution. A-2 was sentenced to RI for life under Sections 302/109 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, RI for another two months. 7. Being aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, both the Appellants preferred these two appeals separately from jail. 8. Admittedly, there was no eyewitness to prove the case of the prosecution. The entire conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court have been based on the circumstantial evidence basically on the extra judicial confession so made by A-1 involving himself and A-2 to the prosecution witnesses namely PWs-2, 3, 4, 6 and 10. 9. The limited question that has come out for consideration in both the appeals is as to whether the extra-judicial confession made by A-1 connecting himself and the co-accused A-2 can be the basis for conviction of both the Appellants? 10. Law is settled that it is not open for any court to draw a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would solely depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the credibility of the witnesses before whom such confession is made. If such extra-judicial confession keeps its corroboration from the trustworthy witnesses, the same can form the basis of conviction. Extra-judicial confession if voluntarily made the same can also be relied upon by the court in convicting the accused. 11. In the instant case, A-1 made extra-judicial confession before PW-2, Baban Singh, father of the deceased, PW-3, Sikondar Singh, uncle of the deceased, PW-4, Ram Nath cousin of the deceased's mother, PW-6, Sunu Kurmi and PW-10, Sew Nath Singh. 12. From the depositions of PW-2, it appears that when his daughter accompanying A-1 did not return home till night, they made search for her but they could not find both of them. Next morning he alongwith PW-4, Ram Nath went to the house of A-2. They found both of them there and when he asked A-1 about his daughter he told, "I killed the girl," "I sacrificed Purnima. Ajit Dutta has told that man should be sacrificed to the "goddess" to cure his disease." A-1 also told him that taking the girl to 'Kali than' he sacrificed her and the body was still lying there. They found both of them there and when he asked A-1 about his daughter he told, "I killed the girl," "I sacrificed Purnima. Ajit Dutta has told that man should be sacrificed to the "goddess" to cure his disease." A-1 also told him that taking the girl to 'Kali than' he sacrificed her and the body was still lying there. It has also come on record from the evidence of PW-2 that when police came from Mahabhairab Police Station, before police A-1 also told that he sacrificed the girl at Noorbari tea estate on being asked by Ajit Dutta and he could show the dead body. Keeping A-2 at Mahabhairab Police Station, police took A-1 to show the place and A-1 showed the dead body under tea bushes of Noorbari Tea Estate. Deceased was lying there with her face up. Neck was also severed by the front side. The neck bore cut wounds caused by dao. 13. PW-3, Sikondar Singh in his evidence deposed that they were also involved in search of the deceased on that night. Despite their search she could not be found out. In the next morning, they went to the house of A-2 where both the Appellants were found. In front of them, when PW-2 asked A-1 as to where Punam was, A-1 told that he had sacrificed Punam near Kali temple at Noorbari Tea Estate and had drunk her blood. This witness even, in cross, admitted the making of such confession by A-1 regarding sacrificing the deceased before the police. 14. In the same breath, PW-4, Ram Nath also evidenced that they searched for both A-1 and the deceased in the night in many places but did not find them. On the next day morning, they went to the house of A-2 where they found A-1 and A-2. Neighbours also gathered there. When asked, A-1 told that he had sacrificed Punam at the Noorbari Tea Estate in the night itself. When police came he disclosed the same fact before the police also. When interrogated, A-1 told police that as asked by Ajit Dutta he had sacrificed Punam to get energy. He led the police to the place where Punam's dead body was lying. He also showed a dao lying near the dead body by which he severed the neck of Punam. The dead body was kept behind the tea bushes. 15. When interrogated, A-1 told police that as asked by Ajit Dutta he had sacrificed Punam to get energy. He led the police to the place where Punam's dead body was lying. He also showed a dao lying near the dead body by which he severed the neck of Punam. The dead body was kept behind the tea bushes. 15. In the cross, PW-4 deposed, it is not a fact that I did not tell the police that as asked by Ajit Dutta accused Shew Kumar has sacrificed Punam. It is not a fact that I did not tell the police of Shew Kumar saying Ajit Dutta had told him that his (Shew Kumar) disease would be cured if he sacrifice man. 16. A-1 also made extra-judicial confessional statement to PW-6, Sunu Kurmi. Similarly, PW-10, Shew Nath Singh also claimed that when A-1 was asked about Punam he told that the girl had not been living. They had cut her. According to this witness, A-1 in front of them confessed before the police regarding killing of the deceased and led the police to recover the dead body. 17. PW-12, Nanda Ram Das, the I/O in his evidence stated that when both the Appellants were taken to police station. A-1 told that at about 5 p.m., on 4.10.04, tempting his niece he took her away from her house at Amolapam gaon promising her to give biscuit and he killed her by sacrificing her at Noorbari Tea Estate where the dead body was lying and he could show the dead body. Then this witness alongwith other staff, O/C of Tezpur Police Station who also came there, i.e. the Police Station and accused Sri Kumar, A-1 went to the Noorbari Tea Estate. A-1 showed them the dead body of Punam. The I/O saw the dead body lying there with wound in her person. 18. In order to appreciate the extra-judicial confession, in question, we have considered the relevant factors like-- (I) To whom it was made, (ii) Time and place of making it, (iii) The circumstance in which it was made and having gone through these relevant factors, in the case at hand, we find that those witnesses, namely, PWs-2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 are credible, trustworthy and reliable before whom A-1 made such type of confession voluntarily. 19. It is argued by Mrs. 19. It is argued by Mrs. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of A-1 that the so called extra-judicial confession on which the reliance has been placed for conviction was extracted under threat and coercion and the same cannot be said to be voluntary and true and hence, the same cannot be the basis of conviction of the Appellant A-1. She has submitted that such statement was made by A-1 when he including A-2 were tied up by the public so gathered in the place of occurrence. Under such compelling circumstances, A-1 had no option but to make such statement which was accepted as extra-judicial confession. 20. We are unable to appreciate such submission due to the simple reason that evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 would categorically and emphatically indicate that at the time of making such extra-judicial confession before them both A-1 and A-2 were not tied up. It appears from the evidence of PW-12, the I/O that when I/O came he found both the person including A-1 and A-2 were tied up by the public but as per statement of the witnesses as indicated above, A-1 had already made such confession prior to such public action of tying them up and police found both of them being tied up after making such statement. It can easily be said that after making of extra-judicial confession by A-1, public might have tied both of them up. 21. So far as the conviction of A-2 pursuance to the extra-judicial confession made by A-1 involving A-2 also in the instant case is concerned, we do not find any plausible reason as to why such extra- judicial confession made by A-1 involving his co-accused A-2 cannot be used when such confession was made voluntarily and also accepted being corroborated by all the witnesses. Exclusive survey of the materials on record does not reveal anything whatsoever to the effect that A-1 made such extra-judicial confession out of pressure, inducement or threat. We have found that this extra-judicial confession made by A-1 regarding his involvement alongwith A-2 gets fullest sufficient and strongest corroboration from all the witnesses mentioned above. 22. Under such circumstances, we have no option but to accept the extra-judicial confession of A-1 as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. We have found that this extra-judicial confession made by A-1 regarding his involvement alongwith A-2 gets fullest sufficient and strongest corroboration from all the witnesses mentioned above. 22. Under such circumstances, we have no option but to accept the extra-judicial confession of A-1 as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. We can safely hold that A-1 committed the crime of killing his own niece at the instigation of A2. Even in his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, A-2 admitted that on the day of occurrence A-1 went to his house but he did not know as to why he went there. It is also admitted that A-1 occasionally used to go his house. Basing on such extra-judicial confession, which is found to be voluntary and true, we have firmly of the view that both the Appellants had been involved in killing the deceased a little girl aged about three years who was sacrificed on the alter of Goddess so as to cure himself from the disease he suffered, yet an another example of superstition still prevailing in the country running through the 21st century. 23. In view of what has been discussed and observed, we do fully agree with the views expressed and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court word by word. It is also seen that the impugned judgment and order is a well reasoned one. Hence, we find no illegality, infirmity and irregularity in the impugned conviction and sentence so as to persuade us to dislodge the same. Consequently, the impugned judgment and sentence convicting and sentencing both the Appellants are hereby affirmed and upheld. 24. In the result, both the jail appeals fail and stand dismissed. 25. Send down the lower court record. 26. Before parting with these cases, we would like to place on record our appreciation to both Mr. M.H. Choudhury and Mrs. K.M. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae for their valuable assistance to the court in arriving at the decision abovementioned in these appeals. Accordingly, we order that they are entitled to get their professional fees, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each