JUDGMENT Amit Talukdar, J. 1. ABLUTIONS over, she was preparing to repair for the night when death claimed her in some horrendous circumstances. 2. SINCE her Father-in Law, P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta grew restive on account of her non-arrival from the pond of Lakhpukur, where she had gone to wash herself, he set on a search along with some co-villagers. The same yielded to the discovery of her mortal remains in a dishevelled condition under a wood apple tree in the vicinity of the said pond with injuries. It is the cause of such death, circumstances leading to it and the role played by these two appellants in the commission of the same, is required to be tracked by us in this appeal so as to appreciate the impact of the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2007 arrived at on 29.01.2008 whereby the appellants (both the appeals being heard analogously, are being disposed of by this common judgment and the appellant Dilip Kumar Dey @ Dilip @ Dilu in C.R.A. No. 141 of 2008 is referred to as 'A-1' whereas appellant in C.R.A. No. 214 of 2008 Shristidhar Roy @ Bhombal @ Hambul is referred to as 'A- 2') were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay rupees six thousand each; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more in respect of their conviction for the charge of section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. EVEN though both the appellants were found guilty in respect of the charge of section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code; however, no separate sentence was awarded as already they were directed to cover a life term. 4. BACKGROUND facts leading to the initiation of the present case can be traced back to a monsoon evening of 16.08.2006 when Chandra Dutta @ Khuku the Daughter of P.W.I, Kartick Ch. Roy, who was given in marriage to P.W.4, Maloy Dutta had been to the nearby pond for a wash. But since she did not return till late evening, this persuaded P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta to conduct a search. The dead-body of deceased Chandra was found with her wearing apparels ajar under a wood apple tree standing near the pond. He took out a written complaint (Ext.3) before P.W. 26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer, who directed P.W.20, Md. But since she did not return till late evening, this persuaded P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta to conduct a search. The dead-body of deceased Chandra was found with her wearing apparels ajar under a wood apple tree standing near the pond. He took out a written complaint (Ext.3) before P.W. 26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer, who directed P.W.20, Md. Ayub Hossain to submit the same to the police station which resulted in registration of the formal FIR (Ext.8) at the instance of the P.W.24, Ajoy Dey, Sub-Inspector of police, who at the relevant date and time was posted as sub inspector of police, Khandaghosh Police Station. 5. ON the same night an inquest (Ext. 1) over the dead body of Deceased Chandra was conducted by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer of this case in the presence of P.W.I, Kartick Ch. Roy, father of the Deceased her Sister-in-Law, P.W.8, Sabitri Juin, her Father-in-Law, P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, P.W. 10, Md. Hanif, P.W. 19, Constable Nepal Chandra Kundu and A-1. 6. THEREAFTER the dead-body was sent through P.W. 19, Constable Nepal Chandra Kundu against a dead-body challan (Ext.5) for the purpose of postmortem Examination which was held by P.W.23, Professor Dr. B.N. Kahali, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic and State Medicine, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital on 17.08.06, who is now posted as Professor in the Department of Forensic and State Medicine, N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital. In the meanwhile, on 19.08.06 the appellants were produced under arrest before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan and they were sent on police remand till 26.08.06 in connection with G.R. 1140 of 2006. 7. IN terms of their statement (Ext. 10 and 10/1) recorded by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer of this case on being pointed out by the appellants the Saree (Mat. Ext.-I) was recovered from the mud of the pond on 21.08.06 in the presence of P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, P.W.7, Suchandra Dutta, Sister-in-Law and the husband of the deceased, P.W.4, Maloy Dutta by P.W. 15, Ajit Santra, P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty, P.W. 14, Shyamal Singh on the strength of a Seizure List (Ext.4) along with P.W.21, Haru Khara, P.W.16, Pintu Majhi and P.W.22, Srikanta Santra who however, did not attest the Seizure List (Ext. 4) 8. EARLIER, innerwear (Mat. 4) 8. EARLIER, innerwear (Mat. Ext.-II) of the deceased Chandra was also seized by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer on the strength of the Seizure List (Ext.2) on 16.08.06 on the same night of the incident in the presence of A-I, P.W.10, Md. Hanif, a co-villager, P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy, father of the deceased. The conclusion of the Investigation by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer saw the filing of a chargesheet which resulted in the commitment of the present appellants before the learned Trial Court. During the trial the appellants were directed to answer two heads of charges, they are:- Firstly "That you on or about the 16th day of August, 2006 at about 6 p.m. committed murder by causing the death of Chandra Dutta @ Khuku w/o Maloy Chand Dutta and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. That you on or about 16.8.06 at about 6 p.m. having reason to believe that the offence under section 302 IPC has been committed, did cause certain evidence of the said evidence to disappear the wearing apparels of the victim Chandra Dutta and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 201 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions" Secondly "That you have committed the murder with common intention and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 34 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions." 9. SINCE they pleaded not guilty, they were placed on trial, which ended in their conviction as above. 10. WE have had the occasion to hear Shri Basu, learned Senior Counsel for the A-1 and Shri Roy for A-2, who has practically adopted the submissions of Shri Basu. Learned Public Prosecutor represented the State. Shri Basu relied on a written notes of argument. The mainstay of his argument in a concise form reveals; a) The extra-judicial confession made by A-1 before P. W. 18, Shyamal Dutta and P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta does not inspire much confidence in the mind of a prudent man as the same was made at a very belated stage; b) it is not clear as to why would A-1 repose confidence on P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta does not inspire much confidence in the mind of a prudent man as the same was made at a very belated stage; b) it is not clear as to why would A-1 repose confidence on P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta for confiding about the guilt; c) the conduct of P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta, a practising lawyer of Burdwan Court before whom extra-judicial confession was made, was absolutely improbable. Even after having heard about the said incident, he asked the appellant to leave the place after assuring him that he will see the matter; d) it is not understood why A-1, who was all through present when the dead body was located in the place of occurrence and who signed on the inquest report (Ext.1) and attended the funeral and signed on the seizure list (Ext.2) pertaining to the seizure of saya (pettycoat) had a change of mind subsequently; e) the evidence of P.W.1, Jyotsna Dutt, the sole eye-witness of this case was liable to be discarded since it was most unnatural conduct of a person, who had seen one of her relatives being done to death would keep quiet and simply return back to her home and divulge the same only after the lapse of several hours to her husband; f) the evidence of P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer that on 20.08.06 he had brought the appellants in the presence of other witnesses but could not find anything from the place of occurrence and it is only on 21.08.06 the recovery was made. This was also, according to Shri Basu, extremely mysterious. 11. AS a part of his submission Shri Basu relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Pande vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1026 , to submit when the FIR was contradicted to a major extent by the maker of the same, the whole prosecution case was liable to be disbelieved. 12. HE next referred to the decision of the' Apex Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 , Heramba Brahma and Anr. vs. State of Assam, on the point that unless the exact words are reproduced and it is established that the accused could place confidence on a person before whom he is making a confession, is satisfied the conviction based on the said piece of evidence is not reliable. vs. State of Assam, on the point that unless the exact words are reproduced and it is established that the accused could place confidence on a person before whom he is making a confession, is satisfied the conviction based on the said piece of evidence is not reliable. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky vs. State of Punjab, 2007(1) SCC (Cri) 732, to illustrate his point that the statement (Ext. 10 and 10/1) leading to the recovery of the Saree (Mat.Ext.-I) on the strength of Ext A, was not trustworthy and the statement of the appellants purportedly under section 27 of the Evidence Act did not meet the required standard. 13. LEARNED Public Prosecutor with Shri Sushil Kumar argued that it is not in dispute that the deceased Chandra Dutta was found murdered near her house on the banks of a local pond known as Lakhpukur. 14. LEARNED Public Prosecutor further submitted that there was no dispute with regard to the various injuries seen by P.W.23, Prof. Dr. B.N. Kahali, the Autopsy Surgeon. Learned Public Prosecutor did not find any fault with regard to the conduct of P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta, an eye-witness in keeping quiet about the incident of the appellants jostling with the deceased and banging her head before she could divulge the same to the other witnesses. 15. LEARNED Public Prosecutor also relied on the decision of Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, 2007(12) SCC 230 . 16. LASTLY, learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the recovery held at the instance of the appellants could not be disputed even for a moment in view of the strong evidence in this regard. He urged us to accept the statements of P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta and P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, eyewitnesses and submitted that as leading to their statement, recovery was made, it was not open to the accused to turn around and point out to some technical difficulties. He has prayed for dismissing the appeal. 17. FOR a profitable discussion, we would be of the view that it would be appropriate to set out the witnesses examined by the prosecution in their respective perspective. The prosecution has, in all, examined twenty six witnesses. First we have the police witnesses. They are: 18. He has prayed for dismissing the appeal. 17. FOR a profitable discussion, we would be of the view that it would be appropriate to set out the witnesses examined by the prosecution in their respective perspective. The prosecution has, in all, examined twenty six witnesses. First we have the police witnesses. They are: 18. P.W. 24, Ajoy Dey, Sub-Inspector of police attached to Asansol (South) Police Station, who at the relevant time was attached to Khandaghosh Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered the Written Complaint (Ext.3) as the formal FIR (Ext.8) on the direction of P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.25, Sudip Ghose, Sub-Inspector of Police of Khandaghosh Police Station effected the seizure (Ext. 6) on 17.08.06 at the police station in respect of wearing apparels of the deceased including the viscera, blood samples etc. etc. as produced by some constables (not examined). 19. P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, Sub-Inspector of police, Khandaghosh Police Station Investigated the case and ultimately, filed chargesheet. Witnesses before whom extra-judicial confession was made. They are; P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta was a clerk in the office of the District Judge, Burdwan and; P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta was a practising lawyer of the Burdwan Court. The so-called eye-witnesses are; P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta and; P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta. 20. IN the category of Hostile Witnesses we have before us P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty, a co-villager and P.W.14, Shyamal Singh also a co-villager, who were also party to the recovery of the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1). The Medical Evidence covers P.W.23, Professor Dr. B.N. Kahali, professor in the Department of Forensic and State Medicine, N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital who, at the relevant time of the incident was serving in his capacity as Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic and State Medicine, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital conducted the autopsy over the body of the deceased Chandra. 21. THE witnesses to the recovery of the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) on the showing of the appellants, were; P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, husband of the deceased; P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, a co-villager; P.W.7, Suchandra Dutta, Sister-in-Law of the deceased; P.W.15, Ajit Saha P.W.16, Pintu Majhi P.W.14, Shyamal Singh, hostile witness P.W.22, Srikanta Santra; P.W.21, Haru Khara and; P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty 22. 21. THE witnesses to the recovery of the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) on the showing of the appellants, were; P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, husband of the deceased; P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, a co-villager; P.W.7, Suchandra Dutta, Sister-in-Law of the deceased; P.W.15, Ajit Saha P.W.16, Pintu Majhi P.W.14, Shyamal Singh, hostile witness P.W.22, Srikanta Santra; P.W.21, Haru Khara and; P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty 22. LOCATION of the dead body on the date of incident under a wood apple tree near the pond known as Lakhpukur within the vicinity of the house of the Deceased, as reflected from the Sketch Map (Ext.9) prepared by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer in a revealed position has been spoken by P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, Father-in-Law of the Deceased, P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy, father of the deceased, P.W.3, Maya Rani Dutta, P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, husband of the deceased P.W.8, Sabitri Juin, P.W.6, Saday Dutta, P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, P.W.7, Suchanda. Dutta, P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty, P.W.14, Shyamal Singh, P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta and the Investigating Officer of the case P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas. Signatories to the inquest (Ext. 1) prepared by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer-were, P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, P.W.10, Md. Hanif, P.W.8, Sabitri Juin, P.W.19, Constable Nepal Chandra Kundu, P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy and the A-1 himself. 23. IN respect of the seizure of the innerwear purportedly worn by Deceased Chandra Dutta which was made under a seizure list (Ext.2), was signed by A-1, P.W.10, Md. Hanif, P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy as prepared by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer. * * * * ***** 24. WE have to view the entire appeal firstly in the prism of the Extra judicial confession made by A-1 before P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and his younger brother P.W. 18, Shaymal Dutta secondly the statements of the appellant leading to the recovery. Their statements (Ext. 10 and Ext. 10/1) recorded by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer led to the recovery of the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) from the mud of the Lakhpukur on 21.08.06 in the presence of P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, P.W.S, Provakar Dutta, P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta, P.W.15, Ajit Santra, P.W. 16, Pintu Majhi, P.W.14, Shyamal Singh and P.W.22, Srikanta Santra, P.W.21, Haru Khara and P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty. The profile of the prosecution case has been already gleaned through. Ext.-1) from the mud of the Lakhpukur on 21.08.06 in the presence of P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, P.W.S, Provakar Dutta, P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta, P.W.15, Ajit Santra, P.W. 16, Pintu Majhi, P.W.14, Shyamal Singh and P.W.22, Srikanta Santra, P.W.21, Haru Khara and P.W.13, Guru Prasanna Chakraborty. The profile of the prosecution case has been already gleaned through. It would be now required for us to assess the submissions of Shri Basu on the anvil of the evidence on record seen by us in the backdrop of the reservations of the learned Public Prosecutor. 25. SHRI Basu has raised a question with regard to the police station case number mentioned in the inquest report (Ext. 1) which was prepared on 16.08.06 at about 22.25 Hrs. although the case was registered for Investigation on 17.08.06. We have carefully seen the contents of Ext.1. It appears that in the same process it was written "........Surathhal Report.......in C/W Khandaghosh P.S................" but it appears that the word "in c/w" was penned through by a different ink and with a carrot sign Khandaghosh P.S. was preceded by the word "Ref to". 26. IN either direction Shri Basu may have a point as it has been borne out from the evidence that the written complaint (Ext.3) was lodged by P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, Father-in-Law of the deceased on the night of occurrence itself, was forwarded by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer to the police station from the spot through P.W.20, Md. Ayub Hossain, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Khandaghosh P.S., which was received by P.W.24, Ajoy Dey resulting in the registration of the formal FIR (Ext.8) on 17.08.06 at about 00.15 Hrs. that means more or less after one hour to forty five minutes from the preparation of the inquest report (Ext.1). It is unexplainable that the inquest report (Ext. 1), which was anterior to the registration of the formal FIR (Ext.8) could contain the case number. Even if, we leave aside from our consideration the interpolation on a different ink which has been fortified by the cross-examination of P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer, who deposed that the said inquest report was completed by him in his own hand writing in the same sitting - we need not detain ourselves with regard to the said aspect of the matter in view of the larger issues awaiting decision ahead of us. 27. 27. AS we have seen the prosecution case is mainly based on the extrajudicial confession and the recovery of Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) on the showing of the two appellants, which has of course been caught in the eye of a storm raised in the course of the argument of Shri Basu - the same is under severe criticism. 28. WE will see the verocity of the extra-judicial confession and its effect on the prosecution case. Before doing so, we have to again retrace to the various stages from which the dead body of Deceased Chandra Dutta was discovered under a wood apple tree near the pond known as Lakhpukur by P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, Father-in-Law of the Deceased followed by her father, P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy, the Mother-in-Law, P.W.3, Maya Rani Dutta, co-villager, P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, her elder brother, P.W.6, Saday Dutta and Sister-in-Law P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta and P.W.8, Sabitri Juin as well as her husband P.W. 4, Maloy Dutta and the other witnesses whom we had noted earlier. Even at the cost of repetition, we have to keep in mind that the written complaint (Ext.3) was lodged by P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, Father- in-Law sometimes after the dead-body was found in the evening before P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer by which time already P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta had visited the place of occurrence, which was already infested with a gathering and informed his brother P.WM8, Shyamal Dutta and also the police station over phone which led to the arrival of the police party to the village. 29. HE was a signatory to the seizure of the innerwear (pettycoat) near the dead body which was seized by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer at about 23.45 Hrs. in the presence of A-1, P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, P.W.10, Md. Hanif, P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy from the northern side of the pond known as Lakhpukur. 30. SHRI Basu is quite correct that even though P.W.12, Tarun Kr. in the presence of A-1, P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, P.W.10, Md. Hanif, P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.1, Kartick Ch. Roy from the northern side of the pond known as Lakhpukur. 30. SHRI Basu is quite correct that even though P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, a man of some letters, as it is found that he is a clerk attached to the District Judge, Burdwan who saw that the appellants were placing the dead body of a woman under the wood apple tree by the side of the pond and again visiting the place of occurrence being attracted by the hue and cry after sometime and saw the dead-body of Chandra Dutta in the condition described hereinabove under the wood apple tree - even then he did not disclose about his earlier experience with regard to the appellants carrying the dead body of a woman under the wood apple tree. This is absolutely incredulous. This would pass beyond the comprehension of any prudent person. Adding to the said confusion, we would look into the evidence of P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta, an Aunt-in-Law of the Deceased Chandra. Towards the first part of the evening of the fateful day she had also been to the Lakhpukur to cleanse herself. She saw both the appellants were jostling with Deceased Chandra in the water. Thereafter, they were dashing the head of the Deceased on the staircase of the said pond. It is quite curious to note that even though after some time she came to know about the discovery of the dead body of Chandra near the bank of the pond, she did not disclose the same to anyone. It is only on the next day after her husband P.W.17, Samar Dutta returned from the cremation, she informed him, who adviced him to contact P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta on the next morning. 31. ACCORDINGLY, she visited the house of P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta on 18.08.06 along with P.W.17, Samar Dutta. She narrated, the entire incident to P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta as P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta was not available. 32. P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, also an eye-witness also divulged that he had seen the appellants to place the body on the northern bank of Lakhpukur and that both of them disclosed that both the appellants committed the murder. It would be pertinent to refer to the evidence of P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta as P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta was not available. 32. P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, also an eye-witness also divulged that he had seen the appellants to place the body on the northern bank of Lakhpukur and that both of them disclosed that both the appellants committed the murder. It would be pertinent to refer to the evidence of P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, who deposed that he had seen in the early evening the appellants placing the dead body of a woman under a wood apple tree near the side of the pond. Later, when he heard hue and cry, he went to the place of occurrence and discovered the dead body. It may be that P.W.11. Jyotsna Dutta, a rustic lady out of fear may not have ventured out in the night and on her own volition narrated the incident but it passes beyond our comprehension that P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, a clerk of the District Judge would keep absolutely silent before the Investigating Officer when he attested the seizure list (Ext.2) with regard to the seizure of pettycoat (Mat. Ext.-11) purportedly found near the dead-body. 33. P.W.18, Shaymal Dutta was a practising lawyer of Burdwan Court. On being informed by P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta with regard to the death of Chandra Dutta, he came to the village at about 9.00 in the evening and found the dead body of the deceased under the wood apple tree near the bank of Lakhpukur. 34. IT is his evidence that on 18.08.06 in the wee hours of the morning A-1 came and started weeping. He and his elder brother, P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta admitted A-1 in their sitting room when before both P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.18, Shaymal Dutta, A-1 made a confession that he with the help of A-2 committed the murder of deceased Chandra @ Khuku. After hearing about the confession he asked A-1 to leave the place and thereafter with his cousin Abhoy (not examined) came to the police station and narrated the incident. 35. P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta spoke in the same breath of his younger brother P.W.18, Shaymal Dutta with regard to the confession. 36. EVEN though extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, it can be acted upon in the event the same is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances. 35. P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta spoke in the same breath of his younger brother P.W.18, Shaymal Dutta with regard to the confession. 36. EVEN though extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, it can be acted upon in the event the same is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances. It is also required to see whether the same was voluntary and made before a person and under such circumstances which would inspire confidence in the mind of the Court before accepting it. More particularly, whether it was probable that the accused making such confession before the person upon whom he can place reliance. The decision of Apex Court relied upon by Shri Basu in Heramba Brahma and Anr. vs. State of Assam (supra) is of some avail in the factual matrix of the present case. A wholesome appreciation of the tenor of the extra-judicial confession made by A-1 before P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta and P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta two days after the incident; although A-1 was a signatory to the inquest (Ext. 1) he was also found loitering near the place of occurrence by P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, who borrowed the torch light from him in the evening of the occurrence and was present in the funeral of Deceased Chandra- was, in the ordinary sequence of events highly improbable. 37. IT is furthermore curioser to look into the evidence of P.W.18, Shyamal Dutta, a practising lawyer, who after listening to the extra-judicial confession in presence of his elder brother P.WM2, Tarun Kr. Dutta (who had seen both the appellants to carry the dead body in the very evening of the incident) to have asked A-1 to leave the place as they would look into the matter and thereafter go and inform the police station, which, as if, prompted them to come and apprehend the appellants on the self-same day. 38. EVEN though we would not be very much emboldened by the suggestion of Shri Basu that the exact words spoken by A-1 were not produced, which, however, is one of the factors for the purpose of considering the confession; but in the instant case even otherwise we did not feel very much persuaded to abide by such confession in view of its fragile nature. We would be of the view that the piece of extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution in the present case would be of no value and in our considered opinion it would be unsafe to rely upon the same for the purpose of recording an order of conviction. We would have no hesitation in disbelieving the same. 39. THIS would now bring us to the recovery of Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) worn by the deceased Chandra at the time of her death on the showing of the appellant as deposed by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer. 40. THE recovery was made within the ambit of section 27 of the Evidence Act. Law in this regard is quite well-settled that an object, which has been recovered in terms of a statement made by an accused is at best a fact discovered. Nothing more, nothing less, In order to connect the accused with the crime, it is further required to be established that the object so discovered was either used for the purpose of commission of said crime or such discovery was connected directly with the crime itself, otherwise, simple discovery of an object leading to the statement by an accused cannot be treated anything beyond an object discovered. This position is absolutely well-settled as to what would be considered relevant fact in terms of the statement of the accused leading to discovery made purportedly under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Pandurang Kalu Patil and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 C Cr. LR (SC) 257; had taken into account the clasicals locus decision of the Privy Council Pulukuri Kotayya vs. Emperor, 74 Indian Appeals 65, which was followed by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nowsad Sk. vs. State of West Bengal, 2002 C Cr. LR (Cal) 960. 41. P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer of this case sought the arrest of the appellants on 19.08.06 and on the same day produced them in Court whereupon they were sent on police remand. 42. IT is during such remand, on 21.08.06 the Saree (Mat. vs. State of West Bengal, 2002 C Cr. LR (Cal) 960. 41. P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer of this case sought the arrest of the appellants on 19.08.06 and on the same day produced them in Court whereupon they were sent on police remand. 42. IT is during such remand, on 21.08.06 the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) was recovered on the basis of a seizure list (Ext.4) prepared by P.W.26, Jugal Chandra Biswas, the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, husband of the Deceased P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, Father-in-Law of the deceased, her Sister-in-Law P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta and P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, a co-villager. The statements of the appellants leading to the discovery of the said Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) have also been perused by us including the evidence of the persons, who fished out the same from of water of the pond (P.W. 16, Pintu Majhi, P.W.21, Haru Khara, P.W.22, Srikanta Santra and P.W.15, Ajit Santra) in the morning of 21.08.06, who, however, although deposed about the factum of such recovery, did not attest the seizure list (Ext.4) pertaining to the recovery of the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) 43. P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta, a Sister-in-Law of the deceased Chandra deposed that the deceased Chandra Dutta was wearing a Green Saree with white print on it at the time of her leaving for the pond. She identified the said Saree as that of the deceased Chandra. 44. IN her cross-examination she deposed that this type of Sarees are generally available and it does not bear any particular label. Such question of identification by P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta was also deposed by P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, a co-villager including her husband, P.W.4, Maloy Dutta. If we see the cross-examination of her husband, P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, which reads: "..........This type of Saree is worn by many women. There is no specific identification mark in the seized Saree." "Many woman of our locality used to go to the said Love @ Lakh pukur for bathing or washing purpose." 45. IF we see the cross-examination of P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, husband of the deceased, it would transpire that he works in a rice mill in Memari and used to come to his home once or twice in a month in the event of any emergency. IF we see the cross-examination of P.W.4, Maloy Dutta, husband of the deceased, it would transpire that he works in a rice mill in Memari and used to come to his home once or twice in a month in the event of any emergency. His cross-examination further reveals that he was not present at the relevant time when his wife left for having her bath on the date of incident. In such circumstances it would be difficult to absolutely placate the ownership of the Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) by the Deceased Chandra Dutta in the light of the evidence of her husband P.W.4, Maloy Dutta and her Sister- in-Law, P.W.7, Suchanda Dutta. 46. THE cross-examination of P.W.5, Provakar Dutta, a co-villager, who also signed on the seizure list (Ext.4) on the basis of which Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) was recovered on the showing of the appellants may be seen. P.W.5, Provakar Dutta is a school teacher. He deposed that "...I did not see any Saree on the bank of the said pond after going there at about 10.30 a.m. on 21.08.06. I was therefor about 1 hour on that date". 47. THAT apart there is another very important feature which require our attention. P.W. 25, Sudip Ghose of the Khandaghosh Police Station prepared a seizure list (Ext.6) on 17.08.06 at about 16-45 hrs. The place of seizure was at the police station itself. The materials, which were seized were;- 1) green coloured saya (petty coat), 2) blue cotton blouse, 3) viscera of the Deceased, 4) blood sample, 5) nail cutting, 6) scrap of finger, 7) scalp hair, 8) vaginal swab, 9) smear. 48. THE aforesaid articles were produced by one assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, a Constable and a Home Guard. None of them were however, examined. P.W.25, Sudip Ghose in his cross-examination admitted "...........I stated to I.O. that after P.M. examination, Nepal Chandra Kundu produced one Saree, blouse, viscera etc. and I seized the same under a S.L., but there was no Saree........" This piece of evidence of the said police officer assumes a little bit of importance in the backdrop of the entire set of events, which led to the recovery of the article. 49. IN the ordinary course of events the same would not have been of much consequence but considering the preceding incongruities, it cannot be absolutely brushed aside. 50. RECOVERY of the said Saree (Mat. 49. IN the ordinary course of events the same would not have been of much consequence but considering the preceding incongruities, it cannot be absolutely brushed aside. 50. RECOVERY of the said Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) also cannot be a determining factor for the purpose of connecting the appellants with the crime. Furthermore, failure on the part of the prosecution to have the attestation of the seizure list (Ext.4) on the basis of the statement leading to the recovery of the seized Saree (Mat. Ext.-1) by P.W.21, Haru Khara, P.W.16, Pintu Majhi and P.W.22, Srikanta Santra also would lend a shadow 'over the entire process. 51. ONCE we find that we are quite unable to abide by the same, we have to discard from our mind the fact of the recovery, which forms one of the bastions of the prosecution case. 52. THE evidence on the whole, if taken at its face value, leaves much to be desired. THE incident, as it is found from the evidence, took place in the early part of the evening near the pond which is adjoining the house of the deceased and covered by many villagers. It is seen from the evidence of both P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta and P.W.12, Tarun Kr. Dutta, the eye-witnesses that the appellants had hit the head of Chandra Dutta on the cemented staircase of the pond several times. 53. P.W.2, Bishnupada Dutta, Father-in-Law of the Deceased has stated in the F.I.R.(Ext.8) that when he discovered the dead body of Chandra Dutta, he found that the same contained blood smeared marks of injury in the Chin. Professor Dr. B.N. Kahali, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic and State Medicine, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital held the post mortem examination over the body of Deceased Chandra on 17.08.06. Professor Kahali opined "........death was due to the effects of the manual strangulation (throttling), as noted in the P.M. report, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature." 54. PROFESSOR Kahali detected nine ante-mortem injuries over the body of the Deceased. PROFESSOR Kahali noticed presence of multiple injuries of different nature, which pointed to the involvement of more than one person. Professor Kahali opined "........death was due to the effects of the manual strangulation (throttling), as noted in the P.M. report, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature." 54. PROFESSOR Kahali detected nine ante-mortem injuries over the body of the Deceased. PROFESSOR Kahali noticed presence of multiple injuries of different nature, which pointed to the involvement of more than one person. As rightly pointed out by Shri Basu in the event Deceased Chandra Dutta suffered so many injuries at the time of her death, it was in all probability, she would scream for help and the same must have attracted the attention of the nearby household as well as that of her in-laws. 55. EVEN if we weed out from our consideration the improbable conduct of P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta, who saw the incident and simply returned home ostensibly on the ground that she was afraid-we find that once we have decided to disbelieve the eye-witness i.e. P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta and have no option than to shun the piece of extra-judicial confession and the recovery, we would be left with no other choice than to upset the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. 56. THE submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor in the light of the decision referred to, has also been very carefully considered by us. In our humble view, the decision of Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (supra) would not have square application in the particular factual matrix of the present case in view of the reasons which we have set out hereinabove. On the contrary, the submissions of Shri Basu and the decisions cited by him in Heramba Brahma and Anr vs. State of Assam (supra) and Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky vs. State of Punjab (supra) are of relevance in the present context and we would be inclined to accept the same. Since we have found that the scope of the appeal is covered by the ambit of the extra-judicial confession and the discovery statement, we need not advert ourselves to the decision of Ram Kumar Pande vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and the submissions of Shri Basu relating thereof. 57. FACTS leading to the death of deceased Chandra Dutta, who has left behind two innocent children and her hapless husband (P.W.4 Maloy Dutta) are grisly and no doubt horrendous in nature. 57. FACTS leading to the death of deceased Chandra Dutta, who has left behind two innocent children and her hapless husband (P.W.4 Maloy Dutta) are grisly and no doubt horrendous in nature. In fact, the entire surrounding circumstances are extremely dark in nature but simply on the basis of suspicion it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of these two appellants. 58. THE Supreme Court in Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 3206 ; have laid down that between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is a long distance, which is required to be covered. THE graver the charge greater should be the standard of proof required. In the absence of any legal proof, simply on the basis of suspicion it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction. Once we have entertained a lurking suspicion in our judicial mind with regard to the nexus of the appellants with the death of deceased Chandra Dutta as neither the ocular evidence of P.W.11, Jyotsna Dutta can be deemed to be of any sterling quality nor the pieces of extra-judicial confession and the discovery of the wearing apparels purportedly worn by deceased Chandra Dutta at the time of her death, can lead us to any irresistible conclusion that it is only the appellants and the appellants themselves and none other are connected with the crime-we feel before we say amen we have to set aside the order of conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. 59. ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. 60. A-1 is directed to be released forthwith and A-2 would stand discharged from his bail bond. Appeal allowed. Raghunath Ray, J.: I have gone through the judgment/ order prepared by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Talukdar. My Lord has been pleased to set aside the order of conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. 2. With great respect to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Talukdar I am of the opinion that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Judge is to be affirmed by dismissing the present criminal appeal. I, therefore, respectfully disagree with His Lordship's findings leading to the allowing of the instant appeal. 2. With great respect to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Talukdar I am of the opinion that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Judge is to be affirmed by dismissing the present criminal appeal. I, therefore, respectfully disagree with His Lordship's findings leading to the allowing of the instant appeal. However, background facts together with two heads of charges framed against A1 and A2 have clearly been set out and the profile of the prosecution case including categorisation of witnesses under broad headings in its proper perspective has already been enumerated by His Lordship in sufficient details. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to repeat the same once again in this judgment. Hence, I am proceeding to write this dissenting judgment and express my opinion on the points raised by both sides before this bench for consideration and adjudication. 3. Undisputedly, the prosecution case mainly rests on:- i) Testimony of PWs 11 and 12, two eye-witnesses ii) Recovery of wearing apparel i.e. saree as per showing of A1 and A2 in the presence of several witnesses. iii) Extra- judicial confession made by A1 before PW 12 and 18. 4. In course of appreciation of ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses, it appears that evidence of Jyotsna Dutta @ Kachuri PW 11 a close neighbour cum relation of the deceased Chandra Dutta @ Khuku assumes considerable importance. She has unequivocally testified as under: "I knew Khuku @ Chandra who was murdered on 16.8.2006 at 6.10 p.m./ 6.15 p.m. on that date at about 6.15 p.m. I was going to lovepukur to wash my hands and legs. Then I found that Dilu and Bhombal "KHUKUKE JAPTAJAPTI KORCHHE" in the water of the said pond. I also found that Dilu and Bhombal were dashing the head of Khuku on the 'JHAMA' (GHATER SHAAN) of that pond. Due to fear I left the place." 5. She has been subjected to rigorous cross-examination but her testimony remains unshattered. This eye-witness has, in fact, very successfully stood the test of cross-examination. But her testimony has been assailed by the defence on the ground that it is quite unnatural for a person to keep quiet at the sight of such a dastardly attack upon her own relation and also not to divulge the same immediately to other relations/persons and further to wait for return of her husband. But her testimony has been assailed by the defence on the ground that it is quite unnatural for a person to keep quiet at the sight of such a dastardly attack upon her own relation and also not to divulge the same immediately to other relations/persons and further to wait for return of her husband. Such arguments, however, do not appear to me to be plausible. In fact, belated disclosure of a terribly tragic incident as witnessed in that fateful monsoon evening by this eye-witness is of no consequence. Her conscience was, perhaps, so rudely shocked at the sight of such a heinous joint offensive operation perpetrated by the assailants who happen to be her close neighbours that she had to maintain sturdy silence to repose herself in her own dwelling house without performing even her domestics duties for the time being. There was also distinct possibility of her life being at stake, if she had acted foolishly/courageously by raising her voice against the known assailants at that fateful moment. In such a delicate situation, her own life has been saved because of her sheer presence of mind. Therefore, her conduct appears to be quite normal and natural in such a terror-stricken situation. Her consistent and straightforward narration of the happenings of the crucial moment inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. She appears to be wholly reliable witness and as such fully creditworthy. 6. Tarun Kumar Dutta PW 12, however, witnessed the concluding part of this awful incident of ghastly murder. He has unfalteringly deposed that on 16.08.06 just before the evening while he was proceeding towards the field along with the northern side of the Lakhpukur, he arrived at the said ghat in the northern side and he found that Dilip and Bhombal were placing a dead body of a woman under a bell tree by the side of the ghat. His further deposition is that having witnessed such incident he came back to his house at about 7.00 - 7.30 p.m. 7. This eye-witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing has transpired from his cross-examination to indicate that he has deposed falsely before the Court against A1 and A2. His further deposition is that having witnessed such incident he came back to his house at about 7.00 - 7.30 p.m. 7. This eye-witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing has transpired from his cross-examination to indicate that he has deposed falsely before the Court against A1 and A2. It is, however, elicited from his cross-examination that immediately after the incident he did not disclose to others that he was a witness to some portion of the ignoble incident and he did not inform the police immediately. 8. Much argument has been advanced on behalf of the defence on the conduct of these two eye-witnesses to murder since such an incident was disclosed to others including police after a lapse of several hours. To counter such type of argument, reliance can be placed upon a recent ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 1461 . It has been observed therein that the conduct of eye-witness of murder in going to the house of his uncle instead of reporting the incidents to the police cannot be said to be 'unnatural impairing the creditworthiness of his evidence'. It has accordingly been observed inter alia as under: "The conduct of eye-witness to murder in going to the house of his uncle instead of reporting the incident to the police cannot be said to be unnatural impairing the creditworthiness of his evidence. The post event conduct of a witness varies from person to person. It cannot be a case iron reaction to be followed as a model by every one witnessing such event. Different person would react differently on seeing any serious crime and their behaviour and conduct would therefore, be different. Therefore, having witnessed a dastardly murder, it was not unnatural for the said witness to go to his uncle and therefore, the Courts were justified in not rejecting his evidence merely on that score." Fortified with the afore quoted observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I feel emboldened to opine that several hours' delay in disclosing the horrible incident to other has adequately been explained in their evidence to the satisfaction of this Court and in that view of matter, having witnessed a dastardly murder it was natural for these two eye-witnesses not to disclose the same to others. Ld. Court below is, therefore, absolutely justified in not rejecting corroborative evidence of these eye-witnesses. Ld. Court below is, therefore, absolutely justified in not rejecting corroborative evidence of these eye-witnesses. Accordingly, this Court also feels inclined to put implicit trust on them. 9. Mr. Basu has next sought to challenge the veracity of the extra-judicial confession made by A1 before Tarun Kr. Dutta, PW 12 and Shyamal Kr. Dutta, PW 18 on the ground that such confession of guilt has been made at a very belated stage in the house of PW 18 and no reason has also been assigned by its maker for confiding his confession of guilt to these two deponents. More so, whenever there are other co-villagers and neighbours upon whom confidence can also easily be reposed. Since, PW 18 has allowed A1 to leave his house even after confessing his guilt before two brothers with the assurance of looking into the matter, Id. Defence Counsel has doubted the episode of extra-judicial confession. His further grievance was that exact words used by A1 have also not been reproduced verbatim by PW 12 and 18 before whom such confession was purportedly made by A1. Because of non-fulfillment of such requirement, the purported extra-judicial confession is liable to be discarded. In support of his contention he has referred to a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1982(3) SCC 351 [Heramba Brahma vs. State of Assam]. 10. On a close consideration of the said decision it reveals that a purported confession was made therein to another under trial prisoner in Jail awaiting trial for dacoity. They were not known to each other. However, the High Court accepted the evidence of extra-judicial confession without examining the credentials of the witness. The case before us is, indeed, contextually and factually different and as such it is quite distinguishable from the case of Heramba Brahma. That apart, in Aloknath Dutta vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2007(12) SCC 230 so cited on behalf of the prosecution it was observed as under: "Heramba Brahma is not an authority for the proposition that extrajudicial confession must pass the test of reproduction of the exact words. The tests laid therein are cumulative in nature." It is, therefore, now settled position of law that extra-judicial confession need not contain reproduction of exact words to ensure its reliability. Mr. Bose's argument on that score is thus of no avail. 11. The tests laid therein are cumulative in nature." It is, therefore, now settled position of law that extra-judicial confession need not contain reproduction of exact words to ensure its reliability. Mr. Bose's argument on that score is thus of no avail. 11. In a plethora of subsequent rulings the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to make it clear that if the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability it can solely form the basis of conviction. 12. In this context it is relevant to refer to a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(8) SCC 180 [State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram) wherein it is observed inter alia as follows: "It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession." 13. Therefore, the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession is to be judged in each case on its own facts bearing it in mind that a free and voluntary confession is presumed to flow from highest sense of guilt. 14. In the light of principles as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are now to evaluate the creditworthiness or otherwise of the extrajudicial confession made by A1 with reference to the veracity of witnesses i.e. PW 12 and 18 to whom it was made. 15. It is available from the testimony of PW 12 that on 18.8.06 at about A1 4.30 a.m. in the early morning after hearing a sound of the door when the deponent came down, Dilip Dey (A1) was found weeping. According to this witness, A1 confessed his guilt in the presence of his brother Shyamal by inculpating himself alongwith Bhombal (A2) that on 16.8.06 "Dilip and Bhombal caught Chandra on the western side of that Ghat "in KHOLAMELA ABHASTHAF and at that stage Khuku said to them "DILIPDA AAPNI". Accused Dilip further stated before us that he pressed the mouth of Chandra and accused Bhombal pressed the throat of Khuku and due to scuffling she fell down on the JHAMA of the pond and then she died in the water due to fall on such JHAMA. Accused Dilip further stated before us that he pressed the mouth of Chandra and accused Bhombal pressed the throat of Khuku and due to scuffling she fell down on the JHAMA of the pond and then she died in the water due to fall on such JHAMA. Dilip further stated that Bhombal placed the Saree of Chandra inside the water and that both the accused pulled out the dead-body of Chandra on the northern side of the Ghat and thereafter they placed the said body under the said Bel-tree". 16. Shyamal Dutta, PW 18 lends support to the afore-discussed testimony of his brother PW 12 by deposing almost in identical language that Dilip (Al) told them that 'on 16.8.06 Khuku was taking bath in KHOLAMELA ABASTHAI in the western ghat of Lakhpukur. Dilip further stated that he himself and Bhombal caught Khuku in such position with KUUDDSHYEE (bad intention). Then Khuku asked by saying APNI DILIPDA and that Dilip pressed her mouth and that Bhombal pressed her neck. Dilip further stated that in course of scuffling Khuku fell down on the SHAN and received injury on her head and then Khuku expired there. It was further stated by Dilip that Bhombal put Khuku's Saree inside the pond and then he himself and Bhombal took the dead-body of Khuku from that spot and placed it under the said Bel- tree on the northern side of the said Ghat. I then said Dilip- 'TUI-BARI JAA - AMI DEKHCHHI. 17. Both of them have been subjected to severe cross-examination but their corroborative testimony remains unshaken. It has merely been suggested in mechanical fashion to them that due to political rivalry and landed property matter the accused persons have falsely been implicated. There is nothing specific on record to substantiate political rivalry or property dispute between appellants and PWs 12 and 18. On the other hand, it is elicited from cross-examination of PW 12 that he had no litigation with A1 or A2 relating to any landed property. 18. It also transpires from the cross-examination of Bishnupada Dutta, PW2, the father-in-law of 'Khuku' since deceased that he maintains a good relation with Dilip who is a good cook. It further reveals from his cross- examination that he 'used to cook in the house of others in different festivals'. He also cooked in their house without charging any remuneration. 18. It also transpires from the cross-examination of Bishnupada Dutta, PW2, the father-in-law of 'Khuku' since deceased that he maintains a good relation with Dilip who is a good cook. It further reveals from his cross- examination that he 'used to cook in the house of others in different festivals'. He also cooked in their house without charging any remuneration. The deponent, thereafter, emphatically asserts in course of his cross-examination that 'all para-people love Dilip (A1)'. On the face of such clear-cut evidence on record as discussed above, defence plea of false implication due to political rivalry and property dispute as suggested to PWs 12 and 18 stand completely demolished. 19. As already discussed in Paragraph 9, the facets of Mr. Bose's argument is that purported extra-judicial confession is tainted since there is nothing on record to indicate as to why A1 confessed his guilt to PWs 12 and 18. Before addressing this question it is importantly important to note that Court of law is not required to delve deep into the unfathomable depth of human mind and to focus a piercing search light to identify the relevant factors and/or impelling reasons which prompted A1 to confess his guilt before PWs 12 and 18. 20. This may, however, simply be inferred that there may be variety of reasons for unlocking the agonising heart of a distressed soul under severe mental stress and strain especially after commission of such a gruesome murder. Evidence on record indicates that PW 12 is a senior clerk in District Judges' Court at Burdwan while PW 18 is a practising Lawyer of District Judges' Court at Burdwan. Both of them are thus closely associated with Justice delivery system and this has given them a separate and distinct entity from other co-villagers. In such a fact situation, the person (A1) being repentant may opt for an act of penance and thus as a follow up action may decide to confide to them. He may be actuated entirely by an idea of soliciting for necessary legal advice/protection/assistance from them. At any rate, relying upon another ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006(13) SCC 1516 [Gagan Kanojia vs. State of Punjab], it can safely be said that extra-judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved, can be relied upon by the Courts. In fact, by way of abundant caution, the Court may look for some corroboration. At any rate, relying upon another ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006(13) SCC 1516 [Gagan Kanojia vs. State of Punjab], it can safely be said that extra-judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved, can be relied upon by the Courts. In fact, by way of abundant caution, the Court may look for some corroboration. In the instant case, it is worth mentioning that no circumstances have been brought out in cross-examination or by examination of independent witnesses that the statements of PWs 12 and 18 proving such confessions are not voluntary in nature. There is nothing on record even in the form of defence suggestion that purported extra-judicial confession has been extracted under coercion or duress and the same are not correct. 21. Having regard to the legal principles as enunciated in various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court coupled with the corroborative testimony of PWs 12 and 18 before whom such extra-judicial confession was made, this Court is of the definite view that extra- judical confession made by Dilip (A1) was voluntary and such confession was made before these two PWs in the form of a natural response and was spontaneous. More so, whenever evidence of PWs 12 and 18 who were taken into confidence by the maker is consistent and convincing. 22. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that on the basis of such reliable extra-judicial confession, involvement of A1 along with A2 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, whenever the contents of confessional statement have also been fully corroborated by ocular testimony of two eye- witnesses, PWs 11 and 12 as well as medical evidence adduced by Dr. B. N. Kahali, Professor in the Department of FSM, N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital, PW 23 on the strength of P.M. Examination Report (Ex. 7). Such being the position, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that conviction of A1 and A2 cannot be based on extra-judicial confession of A1 which stands further corroborated by other impeachable and trustworthy evidence and circumstances on record. Thus, in my considered view, Id. Trial Court has acted rightly in placing much reliance upon extra-judicial confession of A1 which, in fact, does not suffer from any legal infirmities. 23. Thus, in my considered view, Id. Trial Court has acted rightly in placing much reliance upon extra-judicial confession of A1 which, in fact, does not suffer from any legal infirmities. 23. Turning to confessional statements of both A1 and A2 made in police custody, it is found that pursuant to information as divulged by accused Shristidhar Roy @ Bhombal (A2) and accused Dilip Kumar Dey @ Dilu (1) and incorporated in Ex. 10 and 10(1) respectively wearing saree of the victim was recovered from the pond. There is no doubt that the entire confession of both the accused is not admissible and in the present case, only admissible portion of the confessional statement so made by both the accused has, accordingly, been exhibited and such part stating mode or manner in which the deceased was murdered was not exhibited being inadmissible. It is an admitted position of law that discovery of some facts on information furnished by accused is a relevant fact under section 27 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, admissible and such recovery can also be acted upon as a corroborative piece of evidence. 24. It is, however, argued by Mr. Bose that the alleged recovery was made in extremely mysterious circumstances and according to him, the evidence of Jugal Chandra Biswas, S.I., the I.O., PW6 who brought the appellants indicates that the wearing saree in question could not be recovered in the presence of witnesses on 20.8.06 from the place of occurrence but such recovery was made only on the following day that is on 21.8.06. He was thus raised a serious doubt against such delayed recovery of the victim's wearing saree. In this context, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikramjit Singh @ Viki vs. State of Punjab reported in 2006(12) SCC 307. In support of his contention he referred to the statements [Ex. 10 and 10(1)] leading to recovery of saree (Ex. 1) on the strength of Ex.4 and submits that the same was not convincing. According to him, since such statement of the appellants purportedly under section 27 of the Evidence Act is not in conformity with the requirements of law, it has not much evidentiary value. 25. The afore-cited decision is easily distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case. According to him, since such statement of the appellants purportedly under section 27 of the Evidence Act is not in conformity with the requirements of law, it has not much evidentiary value. 25. The afore-cited decision is easily distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case. In Viki's case (supra) it has been held that recovery of a knife alone is not sufficient to arrive at a finding of guilt. Some jewellery might have been recovered from A2 but such recovery was not made at the instance of the appellant. It was said to be a chance recovery. Furthermore, there was nothing on record to indicate that A2 was known to the appellant. Even, PW 4 in her cross-examination denied that the deceased was having the said jewellery on her person. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court had to observe that the "statements in question was admissible in evidence but the knife was recovered from the place of incident without something more than which would lead a discovery of fact". Against such backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the alleged recovery may not have much evidentiary value. But our case stands on different and better footing. 26. In his evidence, the I.O. has proved only the relevant portion of both the accuseds' confessional statements [Ex 10 and 10(1)] and has elaborately narrated the entire circumstances leading to recovery of wearing saree of the victim pursuant to information furnished by accused persons as per Ex. 10 and 10(1). He has deposed that on 21.8.06 at about 10.25 a.m., he along with others including 4 fishermen and two accuseds had been to western ghat of Lakhpukur from the P.S. His further evidence is that the accused persons pointed out a portion of the Lakhpukur pond where the saree was concealed and then the said 4 fishermen, particularly, Ajit Santra recovered the said saree which was subsequently seized under a seizure list (Ex 4) in the presence of several witnesses. 27. 27. Ajit Santra, PW 15 also testifies that police took the accused persons who showed the area on the pond where the saree was placed and the said saree was, thereafter, recovered from the pond and on their handing over the saree in question, seizure list was prepared by the police and on his identification of signature, the same was marked as Ex. 4/6. During cross- examination, he has forcefully asserted that at about 10/10.30 a.m., they went to Guir village and he recovered the said saree when others also accompanied him. I, therefore, do not find any convincing to discard corroborative evidence of this deponent point of recovery of wearing saree as per showing of A1 and A2. 28. Shrikanto Santra, another independent witness to the recovery has also supported the cogent version of the I.O. and PW 15 on all material points of recovery of the saree in question as per showing of appellants. It is available from his testimony that he alongwith Haru, Ajit and Pintu got down into the pond and it was Ajit who recovered the said saree from the pond. Nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. 29. Haru Khara, another fisherman, PW 21 is also very categorical in his assertion that the accused persons (pointing out to accused on the dock) showed them "some specific portion of the pond for existence of the wearing KAPOR of a lady". Accordingly, the said KAPOR was recovered from the portion of that pond. His testimony also remains unshaken during cross-examination. 30. Gurupada Chakraborty and Shyamal Singh had been examined as PWs 13 and 14 respectively to prove recovery of saree in question. But both of them have been declared hostile and were cross-examined by both the prosecution and defence. It is settled position of law that evidence of a hostile witness should not be discarded intoto. Some portion of such testimony, if corroborated by other evidence on record, can easily be relied upon. Therefore taking their evidence for consideration as a whole, it appears that they have not disputed their signatures appearing on the seizure list (Ext. 4) prepared immediately after recovery from the pond. They have sought to retract from their earlier statements confirming presence of accused at the recovery site. Therefore taking their evidence for consideration as a whole, it appears that they have not disputed their signatures appearing on the seizure list (Ext. 4) prepared immediately after recovery from the pond. They have sought to retract from their earlier statements confirming presence of accused at the recovery site. I.O. as PW 26 has, however unequivocally deposed that both of them stated before him that accused persons pointed out a portion of pond where the deceased's saree was concealed and it was thereafter, recovered. At any rate there are overwhelming materials on record to establish the factum of recovery of deceased's saree as per information furnished by appellants. 31. On the point of identity of the seized saree recovered from a particular portion of the pond as per showing of appellants the prosecution has led the best evidence through the PW 4, deceased's husband who has confidently testified that the said saree which was seized belonged to my wife. This is the said saree marked as Mat Ext. 1 (identified, Mat Ext. 1) on the date of the incident my wife to Lakhpukur wearing this saree". During cross- examination he has rightly stated that this type of saree is worn by many women and there is no specific identification mark in the seized saree. Because of saying so, in my considered opinion, the intrinsic worth of his testimony has not been eroded. Rather, common sense dictates me to opine that many women or their husband may purchase such types of saree from open market. But such a situation does not necessarily weaken the husband's testimony on identification of his wife's saree. Since there is sufficiently strong evidence on record to establish the factum of recovery of the victim's dead body in naked condition, even in absence of specific identification mark on saree in question, it is quite natural for the victim's husband to identify his wife's saree which was worn by her for the last time when destiny drove her to the ill fated ghat of Lakhpukur. More so, whenever there is nothing on record even in the form of defence suggestion that any other woman of the said para/village lost her saree at the material point of time. Considering all these I am to hold that the identity of the victim's saree has conclusively been established. 32. More so, whenever there is nothing on record even in the form of defence suggestion that any other woman of the said para/village lost her saree at the material point of time. Considering all these I am to hold that the identity of the victim's saree has conclusively been established. 32. As to the question of delayed recovery, I.O.'s evidence together with that of seizure witness is to be taken into consideration with utmost circumspection. It reveals from the cross-examination of I.O. P.W. 26 that on 20.08.06 at about 12-15 hours he along with accused persons had been to the bank of Lakhpukur and "took possible efforts for recovery of incriminating articles but on that no article was recovered". It is however, quite evident from materials on record that after requisitioning the service of fishermen only such recovery of saree in question on 21.08.09 was made possible. It is to be specifically noted here that on 20.08.09 fishermen service of fisherman was not pressed. Shyamal Sing, PW 14, a hostile witness has amply clarified the mode and manner of recovery necessitating deployment of fishermen for its successful operation by deposing as under: "In order to search out that saree we took help of a bamboo and in course of searching the sharp edge of bamboo stuck the saree and thereafter it was recovered." 33. It is, therefore, crystal clear that suspension of recovery operation on 20.08.09 was not shrouded with any mystery. Rather, I.O.'s efforts were not crowned with success on 20.08.09 since saree in question was to be recovered from a specified area beneath the water of the tank. On the following day I.O. succeeded in his operation with the help of fishermen and wearing saree of the victim was thus recovered. It has, therefore, rightly been held by the Id. Trial Court that 'two days' delay for recovery of the saree in question is immaterial to cast any doubt over the discovery of saree (Mat Ext 1)...' Accordingly, the defence objection on 'delayed recovery' stands overruled. 34. Now the question crops up whether, the afore analysed evidence is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 27 of Evidence Act. In this context for better appreciation of essential ingredients of section 27 of Evidence Act. 34. Now the question crops up whether, the afore analysed evidence is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 27 of Evidence Act. In this context for better appreciation of essential ingredients of section 27 of Evidence Act. I would like to rely upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in SCC 2002(7) SCC 733 (State of Karnataka vs. Daved Rozaris). In this case under reference the State of Karnataka came in for appeal since the conviction order of Id. Trial Court was set aside by the High Court on the ground that section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied by the Id. Trial Court to secure conviction when the same cannot be the only foundation for conviction. The impugned order of acquittal of the High Court was set aside and that of the Id. Trial Court was restored by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 35. In that view of the matter the underlying principles of section 27 of the Evidence Act have been enunciated with utmost clarity and elegance in the afore-quoted ruling as under: "the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now well-settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri vs. Emperor is the most-quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect." 36. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri vs. Emperor is the most-quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect." 36. Applying the above yardsticks to the factual backdrop of the instant case relating to recovery of deceased's wearing saree as projected through corroborative evidence of as many as nine recovery witnesses including two hostile witnesses and I.O. already discussed in preceding of deceased's. I am to hold that the essential requirements of section 27 of Evidence Act have fully been satisfied. It has also to be noted here that the present case does not rest solely on an evidence in terms of section 27 of the Evidence Act. Rather that was only one of the pieces of evidence. 37. Mr. Bose, Id. defence Counsel has next raised a question as to how the inquest report which was anterior to the registration of the formal FIR (Ext. 8) could contain the case number. Such a situation can easily be explained and the same need not be viewed with a suspicious look for the simple reason that it is a common and useful practice amongst the responsible police officers to put the relevant case No. usually at the top of such on anterior documents e.g. Inquest report and seizure lists etc., if any in different ink or same ink as the case may be, with the words 'Ref to' in order to connect these stray documents like inquest report with the appropriate case for its future reference otherwise without any case no such stray document may get lost. There is nothing unusual in it. Doubt expressed by Mr. Bose thus stands dispelled. 38. The contention of the defence that the presence of appellant No. 1 at the time of search for whereabouts of the deceased, recovery of her dead body, preparation of inquest report and ultimately, cremation of her dead body indicates his innocence is not tenable because common experiences tell us that offenders some time resorts to such tactics to keep themselves above suspicion although such pretension does not work well for a long time and such offenders could not finally escape themselves from legal consequences. In the present case, his simple presence during aforementioned four stages does not necessarily rule out his involvement in commission of murder of the deceased. Rather, these are clinching evidences on record to fasten him with the guilt. Therefore, much importance need not be attached to his mere presence at various places in connection with search for the victim, recovery of her dead body, preparation of inquest report its and its cremation. 39. A significant question has next arisen as to whether P.M. Report is in consonance with ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and extra-judicial confession of appellant No. 1. In order to deal with this question at the outset, reference can be made to the evidence of autopsy Surgeon Dr. B. N. Kahali, PW 23. After P.M. examination, he opined that death was due to the effects of the manual strangulation (throttling) as noted in the P.M. report, ante-mortem and homicide in nature. Nine ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased have been noted in the P.M. report (Ex. 7). 40. PWs. 12 and 18 have stated in one voice in their evidence that Dilip confessed before them that he pressed the mouth of the deceased while Bhombal pressed her neck. Both of them, thus corroborated the medical opinion that the victim was strangulated (throttled) to death. These two witnesses before whom appellant No. 1 made extra-judicial confession further corroborated on the causing of some of the ante-mortem injuries as noted in P.M. report by deposing to the effect that in course of scuffling Khuku, the victim fell down on the SHAN/JHAMA of the Ghat and received injuries on her head and then Khuku expired there. 41. Smt. Jyotsna Dutta, PW 11, an eye-witness testifies that she found appellant Dilu and Bhombal to do JAPTAJAPTI with Khuku in the water of Lakhpukur pond. She also saw Dilu and Bhombal to dash Khuku's head on the JHAMA (GHATER SHAN) of the pond. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that Dr. B.N. Kahali, Autopsy Surgeon, PW 23 has stated that he found nine ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased and presence of multiple injuries of different nature over the body of the deceased pointing to the involvement of more than one person. 42. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that Dr. B.N. Kahali, Autopsy Surgeon, PW 23 has stated that he found nine ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased and presence of multiple injuries of different nature over the body of the deceased pointing to the involvement of more than one person. 42. As already discussed in preceding paragraphs, ocular evidence on record indicates that appellant No. 1 pressed the mouth of victim while appellant No. 2 pressed her neck. Such oral evidence stands corroborated by medical opinion that the victim was strangulated to death. There is corroborative evidence on record to show that victim sustained head injuries and P.M. examination report (Ex. 7) also speaks about such injuries. There is mention of some abrasions and minor injuries in the P.M. Report (Ex. 7) and such injuries are likely to be caused because of shifting of dead body towards the northern ghat of the pond under a bel-tree as is evident from the positive evidence of PW 12, an eye-witness and also from the location of the dead body of the deceased under the bel-tree winch was seen by all the witnesses who witnessed the preparation of inquest report (Ext. 3) under a bell-tree in a lonely place in the northern embankment of Lakhpukur. Considering all these, I have no hesitation in holding that the medical evidence is quite in conformity with the corroborative ocular testimony of a good number of witnesses. 43. In view of foregoing discussion I find much substance in the submission advanced by Mr. Goswami, Id. public prosecutor that the fact that there was a murder of the house wife in some unnatural circumstances is not in dispute and various injuries sustained by the victim as noted by Autopsy Surgeon also cannot be disputed. He has, therefore rightly urged this Court to place implicit trust upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses namely Jyotsna Dutta, PW 11 and Tarun Dutta, PW 12 since there is nothing abnormal in their conduct. Relying upon a ruling reported in 2007(12) SCC 230 (Aloke Nath Dutta vs. State of West Bengal) he has argued correctly that following the legal principles as laid down therein this Court should not reject consistent evidence adduced by PW 12 and 18 before whom extra-judicial confession was made by appellant No. 1 and should hold that extra-judicial confession was not doubtful. 44. 44. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Pande vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1975 SC 1026 ] as cited by Mr. Bose is neither relevant nor applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the simple reason that FIR maker, the father-in-law of the victim had no knowledge about the important facts and circumstances leading to murder of her daughter at that point of time when he handed over the FIR to one Md. Ayub A.S.I, at the P.O. at 22-15 hrs. on 16.08.06 as per endorsement on the FIR itself. It is, therefore, quite obvious that the FIR was handed over even prior to holding of inquest at 22-25 hrs. to 23-35 hrs. on 16.08.09. More so, whenever, the evidence on record reveals that eyewitnesses (PWs 11 and 12) divulged the names of assailants after lapse of several hours. The appellant 1 also confessed his guilt before PWs 12 and 18 in the morning of 18.08.06. In such circumstances, omission of important facts and circumstances which were not within the knowledge of FIR maker at the material point of time does not go to the root of the prosecution case and also does not affect its probabilities. Therefore, such omission is not fatal under section 11(2) of Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. Mr. Bose's argument on that score, therefore, fails. 45. It is next to be borne in mind that same discrepancies in the ocular account of witnesses cannot destroy the prosecution case. Rather such minor contradictions in the prosecution story are bound to occur which are spontaneous and natural. It is pertinent to mention that in course of appreciation of evidence of witnesses I have followed the settled position of law that evidence of prosecution should not be rejected on flimsy ground or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In fact, the prosecution case is required to be judged in its entirety having regard to the totality of circumstances and materials on record. An approach of the Court should, therefore, be 'an integrated one and not truncated/isolated.' It cannot be said that prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it might be nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt. An approach of the Court should, therefore, be 'an integrated one and not truncated/isolated.' It cannot be said that prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it might be nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt. In this context it would be relevant and appropriate to refer to para 10 of a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 48 (State of U.P. vs. M. K. Anthony). It was observed as under:- "While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the Appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals". 46. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals". 46. On dispassionate evaluation of entire gamut of ocular evidence on record with utmost circumspection coupled with extra-judicial confession and recovery of wearing saree of the victim in terms of section 27 of Evidence Act as well as medical evidence on record, in the light of afore-quoted observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court I am of the definite view that the positive opinion formed by the Id. Trial Court on the intrinsic value of the evidence adduced by all the witnesses before him need not be disturbed and findings of Id. Court below based upon such opinion should carry much weight and conviction 'since this Appellate Court is deprived of the benefit of seeing general tenor of evidence given by witnesses.' More so, whenever in the present case I do not find any 'weighty and formidable ground' to reject such evidence on the ground of minor variations and or infirmities in the matter of trivial details'. 47. For foregoing reasons and discussions I feel convinced to hold that the order of conviction and sentence passed by Id. Court below against appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for commission of murder is supported by acceptable evidence. So, I do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.08 and 30.01.08 respectively passed, by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Burdwan in sessions trial No.7 of 2007 arising out of Sessions case No. 398 of 2006, therefore, stands affirmed and order of conviction is thus upheld. Accordingly CRA No. 141 of 2008 stands dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2008 being governed by this common judgment also stands dismissed. Bail bond furnished by Shristidhar Roy @ Bhombal, appellant No. 2 be cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan within a month from the date of communication of this order in default whereof the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan is directed to take appropriate steps including issuance of warrant against appellant No. 2. Order accordingly. He is directed to surrender before the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan within a month from the date of communication of this order in default whereof the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan is directed to take appropriate steps including issuance of warrant against appellant No. 2. Order accordingly. Debiprasad Sengupta, J. The aforesaid two appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench and since there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, the same was referred to this bench in terms of the provision of section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Since both the aforesaid criminal appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence, those are taken up for hearing analogously. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2007, thereby convicting the accused appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 3. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Bishnupada Dutta (P.W.2), father-in-law of the victim, a case was registered with Khandaghosh Police Station being P.S. Case No. 46 of 2006 dated 17.08.2006 under section 376/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the FIR that on 16.08.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. the victim Chandra Dutta went to a nearby pond to wash herself. As the victim did not return even after a considerable period, the informant being the father-in-law of the victim along with some neighbouring people went out of his house in search of victim Chandra. They found the dead body of Chandra in naked condition under a "Bel-Tree" (wood apple tree) on the northern side of the pond with a mark of bleeding injury on her chin. 4. On completion of Investigation chargesheet was submitted under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses including autopsy surgeon and police personnel. None was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. 4. On completion of Investigation chargesheet was submitted under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses including autopsy surgeon and police personnel. None was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. The defence was a plea of innocence and denial of allegation made against them and that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity, political rivalry, family dispute and dispute over landed property. 6. P.W. 1, Kartick Chandra Roy was the father of the victim and he stated in his evidence that on 16.08.2006 after receiving the death news of his daughter, he came to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found the dead-body of his daughter lying on the eastern side of the pond. He was a witness to the inquest and also to the seizure list. 7. P.W. 2 Bishnu Pada Dutta, father-in-law of the victim, corroborated his earlier statement in the FIR and he further stated that he was informed by P.W. 11 Jyotsna that accused Dilip and Bhombal were found jostling with Khuku (the victim) in the pond. This witness further stated that he was informed by Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12) that he saw the accused Dilip and Bhombal while they were placing a dead-body under a wood apple tree. 8. P.W. 3, Mayarani was the mother-in-law of the victim and she stated that she saw the dead-body of her daughter-in-law under a wood apple tree near the pukurghat in unclothed condition. P.W. 4, Moloy Dutta was the husband of the victim and he stated in his evidence that having received the death news of his wife he returned to his village in the midnight at about 1.30 a.m. from Memari and found the dead-body of his wife on the northern side of the pond known as "Lakhpukur". He further stated that his wife used to go to the house of accused Dilip to receive telephone calls and that he was told by his wife that accused Dilip used to look at her. He was also a witness to the seizure of "saree" of the victim. 9. P.W. 5, Provakar stated in his evidence that he rushed to spot and saw the dead body of Chandra on the night at 16.08.2006. He was also a witness to the seizure of "saree" of the victim. 9. P.W. 5, Provakar stated in his evidence that he rushed to spot and saw the dead body of Chandra on the night at 16.08.2006. He was a witness to the seizure of petticoat of the victim. He further stated that on 21.08.2006 at about 10.00 / 10.30 a.m. police came to the village and on being pointed out by the accused persons recovered one "saree" from the pond in presence of witnesses and he was a witness to the seizure of "saree", which was identified by him. 10. P.W. 7, Smt. Suchandra Dutta stated that victim Chandra had been to the pond to wash herself, but she did not return and her dead body was found under a "Bel Tree" on the northern side of the pond. She further stated that on 21.08.2006 police came to the village with the accused persons and recovered one "saree" from the said pond and she was a witness to the said seizure. 11. P.Ws. 8 and 10 were the witnesses to the inquest over the dead body of victim Chandra. P.W. 9 was the scribe of the FIR. 12. P.W. 11, Jyotsna Dutta stated in her evidence that on the date of incident at about 6.15 a.m. while she was going to 'Lakhpukur' for washing her hands and legs, she found that accused Dilip and Bhombal were jostling with khuku (victim) in the water and accused persons were dashing her head on the "jhama" and she left the place due to fear. She disclosed the incident to her husband on the next day in the night, when her husband (P.W. 17) asked her not to disclose it to others. On the following day her husband asked her to narrate the incident to Shyamal Dutta (P.W. 18). Accordingly she went to the house of Shyamal along with her husband. As Shyamal was not available at his house, she disclosed the incident to his brother Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12). This witness further stated in her evidence that Tarun Dutta also stated to her that he (P.W. 12) also found the accused persons to place the dead-body on the northern bank' of Lakhpukur. She further stated that she was told by Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12) that accused Dilip made a confession before him that he committed murder of Khuku. 13. This witness further stated in her evidence that Tarun Dutta also stated to her that he (P.W. 12) also found the accused persons to place the dead-body on the northern bank' of Lakhpukur. She further stated that she was told by Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12) that accused Dilip made a confession before him that he committed murder of Khuku. 13. P.W. 12, Tarun Dutta deposed that on 16.08.2006 before evening when he was proceeding towards the field along the northern side of Lakhpukur, he found that accused Dilip and Bhombal placiag a dead body under a wood apple tree. On seeing such incident he returned to his house and on the same night he again came out of his house and found the dead body of Chandra under the wood apple tree. He came back to his house and informed his brother Shyamal Dutta as also Khandaghosh Police Station over telephone. This witness further deposed that on 18.08.2006 at about 4.30 a.m. accused Dilip came to his house and confessed before his brother Shyamal (P.W. 18) that he along with Bhombal committed murder of Chandra. It was stated by this witness that on 18.08.2006 his sister Jyotsna (P.W. 11) and her husband Samar Dutta came to their house and searched for Shyamal and since Shyamal was not available P.W. 11, Jyotsna told her what she had seen on 16.08.2006 at 6 / 6.30 p.m. 14. P.W. 13, Guru Prasanna found Chandra's dead-body under wood apple tree and he further deposed that police came to the village and recovered one saree from the pond. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 14 was also a witness to the seizure of saree and he was declared hostile. P.Ws. 15 and 16 are two fishermen by profession and with their help "saree" of the victim was recovered from the pond. 15. P.W. 17, Samar Dutta was the husband of P.W. 11, Jyotsna and he stated in his evidence that on 18.08.2006 his wife (P.W. 11) disclosed to him that on 16.08.2006 she found accused Dilip and Bhombal jostling with Khuku (victim) in the water and being afraid she returned to her house. P.W. 17 told his wife (P.W. 11) not to disclose this incident to others and on the following morning both of them had been to the house of Shyamal (P. W. 18). P.W. 17 told his wife (P.W. 11) not to disclose this incident to others and on the following morning both of them had been to the house of Shyamal (P. W. 18). As Shyamal was not available at his house, Jyotsna (P.W. 11) stated about the incident to Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12 and brother of Shyamal). 16. P.W. 18, Shyamal Dutta deposed that on 16.08.2006 at about 7.30 / 8.00 p.m. he was at Burdwan and was informed by his elder brother (P.W. 12) that Chandra was murdered. Having received such information he came to his village and found the dead-body of Khuku under a wood apple tree. On the night of 17.08.2006, after cremation of the dead-body, he returned to the village with others and on the same night his elder brother (P.W. 12) disclosed to him that on 16.08.2006 he saw Dilip and Bhombal to place a dead-body under a tree on the northern side of Lakhpukur. This witness further stated that on 16.08.2006 in the early morning accused Dilip came to his house and confessed that he along with Bhombal committed murder of Chandra. 17. P.Ws. 19 and 20 were formal witnesses. P.W. 21 Haru Khara stated in his evidence that he along with others had been to a pond and recovered one 'saree' on being shown by accused persons. P.W. 22, Srikanta Santra also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 21. 18. P.W. 23 was the autopsy surgeon, who held post-mortem over the dead body of victim Chandra. He found 9 ante-mortem injuries over the dead body and he opined that death was due to the effect of manual strangulation ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 19. P.W. 24 was S.I. of Police, who drew up the formal FIR. P.W. 25 was a formal witness, who seized wearing apparels of the victim. 20. P.W. 26 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body, interrogated and recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of Investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 21. The learned Trial Judge mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 and the extra-judicial confession made by accused Dilip before P.W. 18 Shyamal in convicting the accused appellants. 22. Mr. 21. The learned Trial Judge mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 and the extra-judicial confession made by accused Dilip before P.W. 18 Shyamal in convicting the accused appellants. 22. Mr. Sekhar Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in C.R.A. No. 141 of 2008 submitted that in the present case preparation of inquest over the dead body preceded the lodging of FIR. FIR was registered on 17.08.2006 at 00.15 hours, but the inquest was held on 16.08.2006 at 22.25 hours, i.e. prior to registration of FIR. It was pointed out by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate that particulars of the case was mentioned at the top of the inquest report, although at that point of time there was no existence of such case. The Investigating Officer of the case did not claim to have received the particulars of the case from the police station nor did he say that he mentioned the particulars of the case after the case was registered. Mr. Bose further pointed out that after the dead body of the victim was recovered, P.W. 12 Tarun Dutta informed the police over telephone about the incident. Although he claimed himself to be an eye-witness he did not disclose what he had seen to the police. It is also not understood what prevented him from being the first informant although the incident was within his knowledge. Mr. Bose, learned Advocate relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009X1) SCC (Cri) 212 (Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra). In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a first information report in a murder case cannot be lodged after the inquest is held. 23. Mr. Bose next pointed out that although at the time of holding inquest the inmates of the house as also other villagers, including P.Ws. 11 and 12, were present, none of them disclosed the names of the assailants. P.W. 11 claimed to have seen the incident of jostling between the accused persons and the victim and P. W. 12 also claimed to have seen the second part of the incident. But none of them came forward and stated the names of assailants before the Inquest Officer. 24. It was the contention of Mr. P.W. 11 claimed to have seen the incident of jostling between the accused persons and the victim and P. W. 12 also claimed to have seen the second part of the incident. But none of them came forward and stated the names of assailants before the Inquest Officer. 24. It was the contention of Mr. Bose that P.W. 11, although she claimed to have seen the incident that the victim Chandra, was fighting with accused Dilip and Bhombal in the water, she did not raise any alarm. She just saw the incident of struggling between the accused and the victim and returned to her house and did not disclose it to anybody till 18.08.2006 before Shyamal Dutta P.W. 18 for the first time. It appears from the evidence on record that at the time when the dead-body of Chandra was recovered, both P.W. 11 Jyotsna and P.W. 12 Tarun Dutta were present amongst other villagers in the searching party. But even at that stage neither P.W. 11 nor P.W. 12 stated anything about the incident, which they had seen earlier. It was submitted by Mr. Bose learned Advocate that in a case of this nature, where the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 as eye-witnesses, who did not disclose the names of assailants for two days after the incident, such non-disclosure was a serious infirmity destroying the prosecution case. Mr. Bose relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 2488 (State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda). From a reading of the said judgment we find that in the said case prosecution depended upon the evidence of a person claiming to be an eye-witness, who for a day and a half after the incident, did not disclose the incident to others. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that such non-disclosure was a serious infirmity, which destroyed the credibility of the entire evidence. 25. On the same point learned Advocate also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 1028 (Alil Mollah and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal). In the said case it was held by the Apex Court that conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye-witness if he is wholly reliable and corroboration was required when he is partly reliable. vs. State of West Bengal). In the said case it was held by the Apex Court that conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye-witness if he is wholly reliable and corroboration was required when he is partly reliable. It was held by the Apex Court that conduct of the witness in not telling anyone about the incident till next day, was unnatural creating an impression that he had not witnessed the incident and in such circumstances no conviction can be founded on his uncorroborated testimony. 26. Relying upon the aforesaid two judgments it was submitted by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate that the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12, who claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses, was wholly unreliable. None of them disclosed about the incident to anybody for the next two days. When the villagers were searching for the victim, these two witnesses, although they were very much present there, did not disclose to others about the incident which they had seen earlier. Even before the Inquest Officer they did not disclose the incident which they had seen earlier. Their conduct in not telling anybody about the incident makes their evidence not worthy of acceptance. 27. Now comes the extra-judicial confession. It was argued by Mr. Bose that it should not be lost sight of that such extra-judicial confession was made before P.W. 18, Shyamal Dutta in presence of his brother Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12) and Shyamal was a practising lawyer of Burdwan Court and his brother Tarun (P.W. 12) was a clerk in the Court of District Judge, Burdwan. It was argued by Mr. Bose that there was no reason for accused Dilip to choose Shyamal Dutta of all the villagers to make such confession, specially when it is in the evidence on record (evidence of P.W. 9) that Shyamal Dutta and accused Dilip belonged to two rival political parties. So it was very difficult to believe that of all the persons in the village accused Dilip would select Shyamal, who belonged to a rival political party and was in inimical terms to make such confession. Mr. Bose also pointed out that although such extra-judicial confession was allegedly made before P.Ws. 18 and 12, none of them disclosed anything about such extra-judicial confession to any other witness and not even to the police. 28. Mr. Mr. Bose also pointed out that although such extra-judicial confession was allegedly made before P.Ws. 18 and 12, none of them disclosed anything about such extra-judicial confession to any other witness and not even to the police. 28. Mr. Bose relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 2140 (Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh), wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows: "Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the Court must scrutinise all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra-judicial confession if found to be voluntary can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record. Therefore, even the extra-judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason the law insists on recording the statement by a Judicial Magistrate after administrating all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as evidence against him." 29. Mr. Bose also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 (Heramba Brahma vs. State of Assam). In paragraph 18 of the said judgment it was held by the Apex Court as follows: "18. Mr. Bose also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 (Heramba Brahma vs. State of Assam). In paragraph 18 of the said judgment it was held by the Apex Court as follows: "18. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court accepted the evidence on this extra-judicial confession without examining the credentials of P. W. 2 Bistiram; without ascertaining the words used; without referring to the decision of this Court to be presently mentioned wherein it is succinctly stated that extra-judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed." 30. Next judgment relied upon by Mr. Bose was reported in AIR 1983 SC 295 (Manzoor vs. State of U.P.). In the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants, found that there was nothing on record to show that the appellants had any reason to take a particular witness, before whom confessional statement was made, into confidence and to believe that he could save them from the trouble. Supreme Court refused to accept the evidence of the witness, before whom such confessional statement was made, that the appellants made any extra-judicial confession to him. The appeal was accordingly allowed. 31. Relying on the aforesaid judgments it was submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant that it would not be safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 18 and P.W. 12 keeping in view the fact that they belonged to a rival political party, which was in the evidence of P.W. 9. It was pointed out by Mr. Bose that P.W. 18 Shyamal was a practising lawyer of Burdwan District Court and his brother Tarun (P.W. 12) was a clerk in the District Judge's Court. Accused Dilip was in inimical terms with P.W. 18 Shyamal as they belonged to rival political party. It was difficult to believe that accused Dilip would make a confessional statement before P.W. 18, who belonged to a rival political party. P.W. 12 Tarun Dutta also cannot be accepted as a trustworthy witness. Although he claimed himself to be an eye-witness, he did not disclose anything to any of the villagers for next two days. It was difficult to believe that accused Dilip would make a confessional statement before P.W. 18, who belonged to a rival political party. P.W. 12 Tarun Dutta also cannot be accepted as a trustworthy witness. Although he claimed himself to be an eye-witness, he did not disclose anything to any of the villagers for next two days. He was with the villagers when they were searching for the victim. He was present when the dead body was found. He was also present when police came to village and held inquest. At no point of time be disclosed the incident he had seen to anybody. Although it was claimed by P.W. 12 that confession was made by accused Dilip before P.W. 18 in his presence, he never disclosed anything about such extra-judicial confession to any of the villagers or to the police. 32. It was pointed out by Mr. Bose that P.W. 12 in spite of seeing a part of the incident did not inform the police on the first available opportunity although he informed the police over phone. During this period appellant was present at the spot and not only signed the inquest report, which was prepared on 16.08.2006, but had also accompanied the family members of the victim for cremation of the dead body on the following day. What is strange here is that in spite of the fact that the appellant Dilip was all along present with the villagers, including P.Ws. 11 and 12, they did not utter a single word against him. When police arrived at the village P.Ws. 11 and 12 had ample opportunity to make a disclosure of facts within their knowledge, but nothing was said against the appellants. 33. Next circumstance relied upon by the learned Trial Judge was recovery of "saree' from the pond known as "Lakhpukur". P.W. 13, who was a local person according to the prosecution, witnessed the seizure of 'saree' and he had signed the seizure list. However, when Material Ext.1 (saree) was shown to him he failed to identify the same. P.W. 13 further gave out that after recovery of the 'saree' the accused persons came to the spot. Such admission by P.W. 13 being unfavourable for the prosecution, he was declared hostile. Mr. Bose pointed out that P.W. 14 another witness to the seizure, was also declared hostile. P.W. 13 further gave out that after recovery of the 'saree' the accused persons came to the spot. Such admission by P.W. 13 being unfavourable for the prosecution, he was declared hostile. Mr. Bose pointed out that P.W. 14 another witness to the seizure, was also declared hostile. This witness in his evidence-in-chief did not state that such recovery of saree was made pursuant to confessional statement of the accused and that accused persons were present at the spot at the time of such recovery. P.W. 15 was another seizure witness and he was a man of different village. It was his own evidence that he had good terms with the police and he used to help police in different work and used to work as per direction of the police. Mr. Bose further pointed out that P.W. 15 claimed to have recovered the 'saree". Strangely enough P.W. 4 stated that P.Ws. 16 and 21 had recovered the 'saree', while P.W. 5 stated that it was P.W. 14, who recovered the 'saree'. So, as regards recovery of the saree there was serious contradiction in the evidence of those witnesses. 34. Lastly it was submitted by Mr. Bose that there was a glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence and it would be extremely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellants on such evidence. Referring to the evidence of P.W. 23, the autopsy surgeon it was submitted by Mr. Bose that opinion of P.W. 23 was that death was caused by manual strangulation and was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. In his cross-examination P.W. 23 stated that he found 9 ante-mortem injuries on the body. The evidence of autopsy surgeon was an important piece of evidence to Judge the veracity of the prosecution case. Mr. Bose pointed out that death was not the result of dashing the head of the victim against the bank of the pond as alleged by the prosecution. That apart, the nature of injuries as found by P.W. 23 does not conform to the manner of assault as purportedly stated in the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W. 18. The manner of assault as projected by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws. That apart, the nature of injuries as found by P.W. 23 does not conform to the manner of assault as purportedly stated in the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W. 18. The manner of assault as projected by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws. 11, 12 and 18 was to the effect of dashing the head of the victim on the bank of the pond whereas according to the evidence of P.W. 23 death was due to manual strangulation. 35. Mr. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State submitted that in the present case there were two eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W. 11 Jyotsna saw the first part of the incident when victim Chandra was found fighting with the accused appellants in the pond. She had given a description of what she had seen on the date of incident. The second part of the incident was seen by P.W. 12 Tarun Dutta. He found both the accused appellants to place a dead-body under a wood apple tree on the northern side of the pond. It was the submission of Mr. Goswami that these two witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing infirm could be elicited from their cross-examination to cast even a slightest doubt on the veracity of these two witnesses. There was no reason to disbelieve P.Ws. 11 and 12. Delay in disclosure of the incident to other witnesses might be for various reasons, but such non-disclosure cannot be a ground for demolishing the prosecution case. It was the contention of Mr. Goswami that where the witnesses deposed in Court after a lapse of a considerable period, it was quite natural that there would be minor contradictions in their evidence. 36. Mr. Goswami next argued that there was disclosure statement made by the accused and pursuant to such statement recovery of "saree" of the victim was made from the pond and the same was seized by the police under proper seizure list. There was no reason to disbelieve the witnesses to the seizure only because of some minor discrepancies. 37. 36. Mr. Goswami next argued that there was disclosure statement made by the accused and pursuant to such statement recovery of "saree" of the victim was made from the pond and the same was seized by the police under proper seizure list. There was no reason to disbelieve the witnesses to the seizure only because of some minor discrepancies. 37. Referring to the evidence of the autopsy surgeon (P.W. 23), it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it was the definite opinion of the P.M. doctor that death was caused by strangulation and the doctor also found as many as 9 injuries on the body of the victim and opined that such injuries could not be inflicted by one person. So, according to Mr. Goswami, it would not be correct to say that medical evidence was not in conformity with the ocular version of P.Ws. 11, 12 and 18. 38. Finally it was submitted by Mr. Goswami that in the present case there was extra-judicial confession made by accused Dilip before P.W. 18, Shyamal Dutta in presence of his brother, Tarun Dutta (P.W. 12). Such extra-judicial confession was made voluntarily by the accused person and there was no reason to disbelieve P.W. 18 before whom such extra-judicial confession was made. Mr. Goswami relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007(12) SCC 230 (Aloke Nath Dutta vs State of West Bengal). Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, it was submitted by Mr. Goswami that after subjecting the evidence of a witness, before whom extrajudicial confession was made, to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility. 39. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is settled principle of law regarding acceptability of extra-judicial confession and there cannot be any dispute regarding the said principle. But the facts and circumstances in the case of Aloke Nath Dutta (supra) are totally different from that of the present case. In the case referred to above confession was made before a number of witnesses and no suggestion was given to any of the witnesses regarding enmity between the parties. But the facts and circumstances in the case of Aloke Nath Dutta (supra) are totally different from that of the present case. In the case referred to above confession was made before a number of witnesses and no suggestion was given to any of the witnesses regarding enmity between the parties. But in the present case definite suggestion was given to P.W. 18 regarding enmity between P.W. 18 and accused Dilip over a land dispute (page 70 of the paper book). That apart it appears from the evidence of P.W. 9 that he stated in his cross-examination that P.W. 18, Shyamal Dutta, and accused Dilip belonged to rival political parties (page 36 of the paper book). 40. I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. I have perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and I have also scrutinized the entire evidence on record. In the present case prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12, recovery of 'saree' from the pond pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused to the police and the extra-judicial confession made by accused Dilip before P.W. 18. P.W. 11, Jyotsna was a witness to the first part of the incident and P.W. 12 was a witness to the second part of the incident as I have already discussed above. But surprisingly none of these two witnesses disclosed such incident to any of the villagers for the next two days. When the villagers were searching for the victim, these two witnesses were present amongst the searching party. But they did not disclose anything to the other members of the searching party. Same thing happened when the dead body of the victim was found and police arrived and held inquest over the dead body. None of them came forward claiming to be an eye-witness. When the dead body was taken to burning ghat for cremation, both P.W. 12 and 18 were present, but nothing was disclosed by P.W. 12 either to his elder brother Shyamal (P.W. 18) or to any family member of the victim. Where in a case of this nature, the entire prosecution depended upon the evidence of P.Ws. When the dead body was taken to burning ghat for cremation, both P.W. 12 and 18 were present, but nothing was disclosed by P.W. 12 either to his elder brother Shyamal (P.W. 18) or to any family member of the victim. Where in a case of this nature, the entire prosecution depended upon the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 claiming to be eye-witnesses and where none of the said witnesses disclosed the incident for the next two days and where there was no satisfactory explanation for such non-disclosure, it was a serious infirmity, which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of these two witnesses. The conduct of these two witnesses was quite unnatural and their evidence, in my considered view, does not inspire confidence. In this regard, I find sufficient merit in the submission made by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate and I am of the view that the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Brahmananda Nanda (supra) and in the case of Alii Mollah (supra) are very much applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 41. As regards the extra-judicial confession made by accused Dilip to P.W. 18, I find sufficient merit in the submission made by Mr. Bose. The value of such type of evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom such confession was made and the circumstances in which it was made. Such confession was allegedly made to P.W. 18, Shyamal by accused Dilip. It is in the evidence on record that there was an enmity between P.W. 18 Shyamal and accused Dilip over the dispute of landed property and it is also in the evidence on record (evidence of P.W. 9) that P.W. 18 and accused Dilip belonged to two rival political parties. So it is clear that relation between P. W. 18 and accused Dilip was inimical. In such circumstances, there was no reason for accused Dilip to select P.W. 18 of all the persons to make such confession. The evidence of P.W. 18 also does not inspire confidence. Although such confession was made to P.W. 18, he never disclosed such fact of extra-judicial confession to any of the villagers and not even to the police. In such circumstances, there was no reason for accused Dilip to select P.W. 18 of all the persons to make such confession. The evidence of P.W. 18 also does not inspire confidence. Although such confession was made to P.W. 18, he never disclosed such fact of extra-judicial confession to any of the villagers and not even to the police. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, relied upon by the learned Advocate of the appellant, in the case of Kishore Chand (supra) and Heramba Brahma (supra) I am unable to accept such evidence of extra-judicial confession made by accused Dilip to P.W. 18. 42. As regards the recovery of saree from the pond pursuant to the confessional statement of accused, I find that there are serious contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 13, 14, 15 and 16, who claimed themselves as witnesses to the seizure. P.W. 13 stated in his evidence that after recovery of saree the accused persons came to the spot. P.W. 14 did not say anything about such recovery and in his evidence-in-chief did not state that pursuant to the information given by the accused persons recovery of saree was made. In his cross-examination P.W. 14 further deposed that the accused persons were not even present at the spot during such recovery. P.W. 15, another seizure witness, stated in his evidence that he had good relation with the police and used to help the police in various work and used to act as per direction of the police. P.W. 15 also did not find any mark of mud in the 'saree' when it was shown to him. P.W. 16 in his cross-examination stated that the 'saree' was recovered from inside the pond and it was stained with mud. However, when the 'saree' was produced in Court he did not find any marks of mud on it. P.W. 16 also stated that he did not put his signature on the said 'saree' nor was any label pasted on it. In view of the nature of evidence of the witnesses to the seizure of 'saree', it is difficult for this Court to accept the prosecution version that there was recovery of 'saree' pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused. 43. In view of the discussion made above I find sufficient merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate of the appellant. 43. In view of the discussion made above I find sufficient merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate of the appellant. In my considered view prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 44. The matter was referred to this Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in terms of section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the two learned Judges of this Court divided in opinion in disposing of the appeals. After hearing the parties and scrutinizing evidence on record, I agree with the view of my learned brother, Justice Amit Talukdar and allow the present two appeals. 45. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them. 46. The accused appellant, Dilip Kumar Dey @ Dilip @ Dilu, who is now in judicial custody, shall be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. The appellant, Sristidhar Roy @ Bhombal @ Hambul, who is now on bail, shall be discharged from his bail bond. 47. A copy of this judgement along with LCR may be sent down to the Court below immediately. 48. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order may be supplied to the learned Advocates of the respective parties, if the same is applied for.