Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 808 (GAU)

Dhalai Ram Reang v. State of Tripura

2008-11-20

HRISHIKESH ROY, UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 17.8.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. ST 60(NT/D) of 2001 whereby the two appellants herein have been convicted for offences under Sections 364A, 302, 201read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for conviction under Section 364A of the IPC and in default of fine to undergo further two years' imprisonment. For their conviction under Section 302, IPC, they have been sentenced to further life imprisonment and have also been inflicted with fine of Rs. 5,000 each and in default of fine, two more years of imprisonment. For conviction under Section 201, IPC, separate sentence of two years imprisonment has been imposed along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one more year of imprisonment. All the punishments have been directed to run consecutively. In addition to above sentence, compensation has been directed to be paid by the two appellants herein at the rate of Rs. 50,000 each, which has been ordered to be paid to family of the victim. 2. The case set up by the prosecution is that the accused persons including the two appellants had abducted one Nisith Ranjan alias Manik Das on 20.3.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention, from the victim's house under Panisagar Police Station. Following the abduction, ransom demands were made to the family members for release of the victim. Some amount by way of ransom was also paid to the accused Ishwar Kaipeng who is the appellant in criminal appeal 64 of 2003. But even after such payment, the victim was not released. The further case of the prosecution is that subsequently the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang who has filed criminal appeal 75 of 2002 was apprehended by the police and he confessed of being involved with the abduction and gave information that he along with others had killed the victim and buried him at a place near Nutanpara, Tailengtacharra under Damcherra Police Station and that he would be able to show the exact place where the victim has been buried. Then a police team along with appellant Dhalai Ram went to Nutanpara village and the body of the victim was disinterred from the exact place shown by the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang. The disinterred skeleton of the victim was identified by the wearing apparels found on the skeleton as the buried body could not be recognized otherwise. 3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed and two separate charges under Sections 364/302/201 and Section 364A read with Section 34 of the IPC were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and the case was put to trial. 4. For ready reference the charges against the appellants are extracted herein below: CHARGE I, Sri Amitava Dasgupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar hereby charge you (1) Lienlal Ram Halam (2) Sambumram Halam (3) Iswar Kaipeng and (4) Dulairam Reang as follows: Firstly: That you on or about 20.3.2000 at about 8.30 RM. in furtherance of common intention abducted Nishit Ranjan Das alias Manik Das in order that said Nishit Ranjan Das alias Manik Das might be murdered or might be disposed of as to put in danger of being murdered and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. Secondly: That you on or about 1.4.2K at about noon at Nutanpara under Damcherra Police Station in furtherance of common intention did commit murder by internationally causing the death of Nishit Ranjan Das alias Manik Das and you thereby committed on offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. Thirdly: That you on or about 1.4.2000 at about Noon at Nutanpara under Damcherra Police Station in furtherance of common intention knowing that certain offence of murder punishable with life imprisonment has been committed did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit buried the dead body of Nishit Ranjan Das alias Manik Das with the intention to screening yourself from legal punishment and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on that charge. CHARGE I, Sri Amitava Dasgupta, Addl. And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on that charge. CHARGE I, Sri Amitava Dasgupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar hereby charge you (1) Iswar Kaipeng and (2) Dulairam Reang as follows: That, you on or about 20.3.2000 at about 8.30 P.M. at North Padma Bill under Panisagar police station in furtherance of common intention abducted Nishit Ranjan Das alias Nanik Das and kept him detention after such abduction and threatened to cause death or hurt to him and by your conduct give rises to a reasonable apprehension that he may be put to death or hurt of him in order to compel his relations to pay ransom and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of sessions. And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on that charge. EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES 5. The prosecution presented as many as 17 witnesses to prove the charge whereas only one witness was introduced on behalf of the defence. A brief discussions of the evidence would now be in order. 6. PW1, Smt. Sita Rani Das was the informant in the case and also the wife of the victim. In the FIR filed by her on 21.3.2000 at about 1015 hours before the Panisagar Police Station, she stated 3/4 unidentified miscreants forcibly abducted her husband Nisith Ranjan Das alias Manik Das from the varanda of their hutment on the previous evening at about 8 P.M. In her evidence, PW1 stated that after 30 days of the abduction, a letter was received by the family demanding six lakh rupees for the release of her husband. She stated that this demand for ransom was informed to the police station on the next day. PW1 further stated that a sum of Rs. 69,000 was paid, but her husband was not released. She further stated that 8/9 months after the said incident, one extremist was arrested who confessed that he along with others had abducted her husband and had killed him and on the basis of the information furnished by the arrested person, the body of the victim was recovered from a grave shown by the arrested person. PW1 also stated she does not know who had killed her husband. 7. PW1 also stated she does not know who had killed her husband. 7. PW2, Smt. Niharika Das is the daughter of the victim and she stated that when her father was abducted by the unknown miscreants, he was wearing one blue colour underwear, one towel (gamcha) and one striped while half shirt. 8. PW3, Bibhuti Bhusan Das was the scribe of the FIR and was also known to the victim as well as the informant. He stated that a few days after the abduction, a ransom letter demanding money for release of the victim was brought by one Mon Pai Manik Halam and Sumlen Manik Halam. The said letter was stated to have been written by the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng. Then PW3 made contact through the two bearers of the letter and thereafter PW3 along with PW4 (elder brother of the victim), PW8 and the said two persons who brought the ransom letter went into the deep jungle and met appellant Ishwar Kaipeng and paid him Rs. 50,000 for release of the victim. He also stated that a further sum of Rs. 9,000 was later paid to Ishwar Kaipeng. PW3 also stated that when they learnt of the arrest of appellant Dhalai Ram Reang by the police, he went to the police station where according to his deposition, the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang on being interrogated by the police in his presence confessed that the appellant Dhalai Ram along with Lilabati Kalai, Tomas Reang, Sumburam Reang and others had abducted the victim, killed him after a few days and had dumped the body in a graye near Nutunpara. PW3 also stated that thereafter he along with the police and the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang proceeded towards Nutunpara accompanied by Magistrate and after reaching Nutunpara, the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang had shown the exact place where they had buried the victim and thereafter, the body of the victim was recovered from the said burial site. He stated that the body was found in decomposed stage and could be identified only by seeing the wearing apparels on the body. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not mentioned to the police that the ransom letter addressed to the brother of the victim was brought at first to PW3, by Mou Pai Manik Halam and Sumlen Manik Halam. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not mentioned to the police that the ransom letter addressed to the brother of the victim was brought at first to PW3, by Mou Pai Manik Halam and Sumlen Manik Halam. He also admitted that information about payment of money to appellant Ishwar Kaipeng was not intimated to the police till the arrest of appellant Dhalai Ram Reang, as they were hopeful of the release of the victim. 9.1. PW4, Nalinaksha Das is the elder brother of the victim and was informed of the abduction at Silchar where he was staying. He cam after receiving news of the abduction. He deposed that he along with PW3, PW8 and Monpai Manik Halam went to the deep jungle and paid the ransom money to appellant Ishwar Kaipeng for release of the victim. He also stated that the ransom letter was handed over to the police station. 9.2. PW4 also went to the police station along with PW3 and PW8 after he learnt that the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang was arrested. He stated that in the police station he found the appellant Dhalai Ram had confessed that the appellant along with Sumbumram Halam, Lilabati Kalai and others had abducted his brother and had killed him after about 12 days and buried him near Nutunpara. PW4 also accompanied the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang when he led the police and the Magistrate to the burial site and on being pointed out by the said appellant the exact place, the body of the victim could be recovered from the said site. 9.3. PW4 also stated that the ransom letters sent by accused-appellant Ishwar Kaipeng were handed over by him to the police and the said letters have been seized by the police. 9.4 In his cross-examination PW4 stated that on demand, Rs. 50,000 was paid to appellant Ishwar Kaipeng in the jungle and although in his evidence he disclosed that this information was given to the police, the records with the police indicate that no such information was given by the victim's brother to the police. He also stated that he recognized the wearing apparels of his brother when the victim's body was dug up from the grave. 10. PW5, PW6, PW7, PW9 and PW10 are not material witnesses and accordingly, their evidences are not being extracted in this order. 11. He also stated that he recognized the wearing apparels of his brother when the victim's body was dug up from the grave. 10. PW5, PW6, PW7, PW9 and PW10 are not material witnesses and accordingly, their evidences are not being extracted in this order. 11. PW8, Satyendra Pal accompanied PW3 and PW4 when PW4 went to pay the ransom amount to the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng and he is a witness to the payment made to the said appellant. 12. PW11, Amarendra Das who belongs to the same village as the victim was present when the body of the victim was recovered from the burial, site as shown by the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang. He was also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels found on the skeleton of the victim's body and was also a witness of the inquest report prepared at the burial site. 13. PW12, Bidhu Bhusan Das was the Officer-in-Charge of Panisagar Police Station who registered the FIR after receiving information about the abduction from PW1, the victims wife. PW13, Manik Lal Dey was the Sub-Inspector of Panisagar Police Station to whom the investigation of the case was initially entrusted. But these two officers were transferred before the conclusion of the investigation. 14. PW14 Manindra Debbarma was posted on 5.11.2000 as the Officer-in-Charge of the Panisagar Police Station. He arrested the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang. In his evidence, PW14 stated that after his arrest, appellant Dhalai Ram wanted to confess his guilt and accordingly, he arranged for witnesses to be present at the time of the confession. But strangely the O/C, stated that he himself was not present when the confession was made. However, in his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the appellant Dhalai Ram had not confessed his guilt before independent witnesses. This police officer was also transferred out before he could complete the investigation. 15.1. PW15, Prodhyut Ch. Datta was posted on 18.1.2001 in the Panisagar Police Station. He deposed that he recorded appellant Dhalai Ram's confessional statement and thereafter, proceeded towards the place called Tailengta Charra near Nutunpara under Damcherra Police Station where the appellant had claimed to bury the body of the victim. This witness stated that the body was identified by the relatives of the victim by seeing the wearing apparels. PW15. He deposed that he recorded appellant Dhalai Ram's confessional statement and thereafter, proceeded towards the place called Tailengta Charra near Nutunpara under Damcherra Police Station where the appellant had claimed to bury the body of the victim. This witness stated that the body was identified by the relatives of the victim by seeing the wearing apparels. PW15. He stated that on 8.2.2001 he seized the two ransom letters handed over by PW4, the brother of the victim. 15.2. In his cross-examination PW15 admitted that the recovered skeleton was not sent for forensic examination. He also admitted that the handwriting of the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng for verification of the writing with the seized ransom letters were also not done by him. He stated that the victim was killed after 12 days of abduction (i.e., 20.3.2000) and was buried on the same date. 16. PW16 is Dr. Santosh Reang who accompanied the search party to Nutuncherra and was present when the body of the victim was recovered from the burial site. He stated that the body was not identifiable and only from the wearing apparels found on the recovered skeleton, the identity of the victim could be gathered. 17. PW17 was the BDO of Damcherra. He deposed that he accompanied the police and the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang to Nutanpara where the exact burial place of the victim was shown by the appellant and the body of the victim was recovered. PW17 stated that there was no flesh on the skeleton and the near relatives of the victim identified the body to be that of the victim by seeing the wearing apparels only. He further stated that the hands and legs of the victim were tied with rope. 18. The only defence witness presented in the trial was DW1, Subrata Deb who gave evidence on the durability of cotton cloth and polyester cloth, but he could not throw any definite light on the nature of the wearing apparels found on the recovered body. 19. PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW15 were subjected to further cross-examination, but the further evidence introduced have no material bearing in the instant discussion. 20. 19. PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW15 were subjected to further cross-examination, but the further evidence introduced have no material bearing in the instant discussion. 20. The inquest report reveals that there was no injury marks on the body of the victim and the body recovered was found to be wearing one blue colour under pant and the body's head portion was tightly fastened with a white colour striped half shirt. Both these garments were identified by the near relatives to have been worn by the victim at the time of his abduction. 21. In the 313, Cr.PC examination of the two appellants, both have denied their involvement with the charge and claimed that they have been falsely accused of the crime. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSELS 22.1. Assailing the conviction and the sentence, Mr. P.K. Biswas, Learned Counsel representing the appellants in both the appeals submits that there has been total miscarriage of justice in the instant case inasmuch as, there is no evidence whatsoever to connect the appellants either with the charge of abduction or with the charge of murder. The Learned Counsel also submits that there is no acceptable material to bring home the charge under Section 364A of the IPC and under the circumstances neither the conviction nor the sentence of the appellants could be sustained. 22.2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that by relying on the so called confession of the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang in police custody, the learned trial court has committed a grave error inasmuch as the statement of the appellant was never recorded by the police nor such statement was introduced as evidence. The Learned Counsel further submits that even if it is presumed that such a statement while in custody was made by the appellant, the same would be inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 22.3. The Learned Counsel further submits that even if it is presumed that such a statement while in custody was made by the appellant, the same would be inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 22.3. The Learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that even on the basis of the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW8 who stated that the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang had confessed about his involvement in the abduction and murder of the victim and gave statement that he could identify the exact spot where the victim was buried, the conviction under Section 302 or Section 364A, IPC cannot be sustained as only limited portion of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang relating to discovery of the victim's body can be accepted as admissible evidence under the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 22.4. Mr. P.K. Biswas, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants also submitted that the handwriting of the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng had not been proved to be the handwriting on the ransom letters received by the family of the victim and under such circumstances, there is no material to convict the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng for an offence under Section 364A of the IPC. 22.5. Mr. Biswas has specifically referred to the evidence introduced in the instant case and submits that there is no eye witness to prove the charge of murder against the two appellants and none have identified the appellants to be involved in the abduction of the victim. The Learned Counsel submits that the prosecution has based its entire case only on circumstantial evidence and it is submitted that the circumstantial evidence available in the instant case hardly makes out an unbroken chain of evidence leading to the guilty conclusion against the appellants. Learned Counsel specifically points out that the prosecution has failed to connect the involvement of the appellants with the abduction or with the murder of the victim and in the absence of any material whatsoever, the impugned conviction order of the learned trial court is not at all sustainable in law. 23.1. Mr. Learned Counsel specifically points out that the prosecution has failed to connect the involvement of the appellants with the abduction or with the murder of the victim and in the absence of any material whatsoever, the impugned conviction order of the learned trial court is not at all sustainable in law. 23.1. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that although direct evidence for conviction of the appellants may not be available in the instant case, there are enough circumstantial evidences to connect the appellants with the crime charged against them and under such circumstances it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence impugned in the. instant proceedings. 23.2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the court can reasonably presume the existence of certain facts about the actual happening in the instant case since the crime was committed in deep jungle and the absence of direct evidence should not lead the court to conclude that the appellants are not involved with the crime. Attention of the court is drawn to the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (10) SCC 172 . DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE 24. From the submissions made and the materials available, it becomes clear that in the instant case there is no witness who had identified any of the appellants as the abductor of the victim. There is also no eye witness of the murder of the victim or the burial of the victim at Nutancherra or Nutanpara. In fact, the body/skeleton of the victim disinterred from the site pointed out by the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang was also not sent for forensic examination and identification of the body to be of the victim, has not been made on the basis of any scientific test, but only on the basis of the wearing apparels found on the recovered skeleton. It is however seen that PW2, PW3 and PW4 have clearly identified the wearing apparels found on the disinterred skeleton, recovered from he burial side and we can reasonably presume that the body that was recovered at the instance of appellant Dhalai Ram Reang was that of the victim Nisith Ranjan Das. 25.1. It is however seen that PW2, PW3 and PW4 have clearly identified the wearing apparels found on the disinterred skeleton, recovered from he burial side and we can reasonably presume that the body that was recovered at the instance of appellant Dhalai Ram Reang was that of the victim Nisith Ranjan Das. 25.1. But beyond the identification of the body and discovery of the same at the instance of the appellant Dhalai Ram whose statement can be admissible to the extent of the discovery of the body and his own knowledge of burial site under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence in the case which would connect the appellant with either the charge of murder or with the charge of abduction under Section 302 or Section 364A of the IPC. 25.2. The statement of appellant Dhalai Ram is claimed to have been recorded by the police but the same was not introduced as evidence from the evidence of PW3 and PW4 it appears that appellant Dhalai Ram specifically named three other colleagues, Lilabati Kalai, Thomas Reang and Sambhuram Halam. But the admissibility of the statement made while in custody of the police is hit by the provision of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, this part of the statement of appellant Dhalai Ram cannot be accepted to prove a charge of murder or abduction against the appellant. 25.3. To appreciate which part of the statements of the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang is admissible under the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, we will be benefited by referring to the speech of Sir John Beaumont in Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 where the learned Judge stated that Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides an exception to the prohibition imposed under the Evidence Act to accept the statements made before a police by a person while in custody of the police. In the following passage of Kottaya (supra), which has been followed without exception in several subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, Justice Beumont has indicated the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 10. Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. 10. Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operations that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence; but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.... ..."fact discovered" within the section equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife I the house of the informant. 25.4. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife I the house of the informant. 25.4. A reading of the above passage would clearly shows that the admissible part of the statement of appellant Dhalai Ram Reang is the part which reveals that appellant Dhalai Ram was aware of the exact burial place of the victim since it is at his instance, the body of the victim was disinterred from the place shown by him to the police. Rest of the statement made by the said appellant regarding his involvement with the abduction as well as murder of the victim cannot be accepted as admissible evidence in the instant case as that part cannot be considered as admissible evidence under Section 27 or the Evidence Act. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the statement of the appellant. Dhalai Ram Reang cannot be relied upon to connect him with the offence of murder and abduction of the victim. There is no other evidence to link the appellant with abduction and murder of the victim and there is no scope to draw any other presumption. 26. We must also note that in the statement made by the appellant Dhalai Ram as heard and deposed by PW3 and PW4, the name of the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng is not at all mentioned as one of the persons involved with the abduction and murder of the victim, whereas names of several other persons have been specifically mentioned by the appellant Dhalai Ram. This is a very important factor in favour of the accused Ishwar Kaipeng and in the absence of any other incriminating material, involvement of this accused with the murder and abduction charge has to be ruled out. 26.1 The involvement of the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng with the offence under Section 364A, IPC is also not established, in our view, as much as the handwriting of the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng in the ransom letters have not been proved by the prosecution to be that of Ishwar Kaipang. Although witnesses have proved that money was paid to Ishwar Kaipeng, that by itself would not persuade us to reasonably conclude that Ishwar Kaipeng was involved in the abduction or the murder of the victim Nitish Rn. Das. Although witnesses have proved that money was paid to Ishwar Kaipeng, that by itself would not persuade us to reasonably conclude that Ishwar Kaipeng was involved in the abduction or the murder of the victim Nitish Rn. Das. It is quite possible as is submitted by the defence Counsel that appellant took advantage of the situation arising out of the abduction and used the opportunity to fleece some money from the victim's family by posing as an abductor. There is also discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 who stated that police was informed the next day after the ransom demand and the evidence of PW3 who stated that the information about the ransom demands were given to the police only after the arrest of Dhalai Ram Reang. The brother of the victim (PW4) also had claimed that information about the ransom letters were given to the police but the police record does not support this version. Because of these glaring inconsistencies involvement of Ishwar Kaipeng in an offence under Section 364A of the IPC is also doubtful and his conviction, in our view cannot be sustained. 27. The two persons namely Mun Pai Manik and Sumlen Manik who had brought the ransom letter written allegedly by Ishwar Kaipeng the appellant, and in whose presence and at whose directions the victim's family could meet Ishwar Kaipeng in deep jungle and paid ransom money to him, were never produced in the case either as accused, for they knew appellant Ishwar Kaipeng, or even as witnesses to conclusively establish the involvement of Ishwar Kaipeng with not only the demand and recovery of ransom but also with charges under Section 364A. But these two vital witnesses, who knew Ishwar Kaipeng and his whereabouts were kept away and the absence of their evidence is not only glaring but in our view fatal for the prosecution of appellant Ishwar Kaipeng. CONCLUSION 28. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 364A or Section 302 of the IPC and accordingly, we hold that the learned trial court was in error in reaching the above conclusion. 29. As regards the offence under Section 201 of the IPC, we find that there is no evidence at all to implicate the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng with the said charge. 29. As regards the offence under Section 201 of the IPC, we find that there is no evidence at all to implicate the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng with the said charge. Accordingly, we also acquit the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng from the charge under Section 201 of the IPC. 30. But on the other hand, for the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang, we find that it is from his statement given while in custody, the police located in deep jungle, the spot where the victim was buried. On the basis of his statement and on his direction, the police party went to the site and on being shown by this appellant the exact spot, the police dug and recovered the body of the victim, which was identified to be that of Nisith Rn. Das by the wearing apparels found on the body. The knowledge of the appellant Dhalai Ram about the exact spot where the victim was buried clearly indicates that the appellant Dhalai Ram was involved at least in the burial of the body and efforts of the miscreants to hide the crime and to cause disappearance of evidence of offence. This part of the statement leading to discovery can be accepted to be proved in view of the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also the law laid down in Kottaya (supra). 31. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang under Section 201, IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer two years' imprisonment and has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 for his conviction under Section 201, IPC and in default of the fine to suffer another year of imprisonment and we sustain the said conviction and sentence. 32. We are informed that the appellants Dhalai Ram Reang and Ishwar Kaipeng have been in custody since the date of their conviction on 17.8.2002. Accordingly, we find that the appellant Dhalai Ram Reang has already spent in custody more time than the sentence awarded against him and approved by us, for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 33. Under the above circumstances, we partially allow the Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2002 filed by Dhalai Ram Reang and order for his release, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case, as he has already spent longer time than the sentence. 34. 33. Under the above circumstances, we partially allow the Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2002 filed by Dhalai Ram Reang and order for his release, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case, as he has already spent longer time than the sentence. 34. In so far as Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2003 is concerned, we allow the appeal, order acquittal of the appellant Ishwar Kaipeng and his release forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. 35. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside to the extent indicated above and the two appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above order. Appeal partly allowed.