JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. The Appellants Rana Prasad Das and Tapan Mandal were put on trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. ST44(WT/A) of 2004, for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment and order Appellant Rana Prasad Das was convicted under Section 302 and 201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Section 302 and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of two months imprisonment and further sentenced to suffer RI, for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation of one month's imprisonment, for commission of offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 2. However, co-accused Shri Tapan Mandal, who was convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- has not preferred any appeal against the order of conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned trial Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellant and Mr. D Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, with Mr. RC Debnath, learned Spl. P.P., representing the State Respondent. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 4. The defense stand of the Appellant is that of total denial. It would be apposite to depict herein a summary of the prosecution story, at the very outset, which may be stated as follows: 5. Smti. Minati Debnath, PW-1, and her deceased daughter used to work as 'water carrier' in the Office of the Block Development Officer and the Office of the ICDS Office, situated at Bishalgarh. As usually, in the early morning hours, they used to attend the office every day to supply drinking water. Accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das was a contingent worker in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh. On many occasions, deceased Mallika had informed her mother (PW-1) and other witnesses i.e. PW-3, 6 and PW-11, that accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das used to look at her in indecent manner, for which she was afraid of him. 6. On 23.08.2001, in the morning hours, deceased Mallika was found in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh carrying water as before. Thereafter, she was never seen coming back to her house from the office. 6. On 23.08.2001, in the morning hours, deceased Mallika was found in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh carrying water as before. Thereafter, she was never seen coming back to her house from the office. On 24.08.2001 at noon, a missing information was entered in the general diary of Bishalgarh Police Station. However, the parents of deceased Mallika were searching their missing daughter. On 28.08.2001, in the afternoon, some smell was detected to have been coming out from an abandoned well situated behind the Panchayat Samiti Office of the BDO's complex, and accordingly Bishalgarh Police Station was informed immediately. When the police came and disinterred the said abandoned well they brought out a closed gunny bag, wherein the dead body of deceased Mallika was discovered. The witnesses and the parents of deceased Mallika recognized her dead body. Bisalgarh Police station, on the basis of the information so received from PW-15, registered a case and the investigation was launched. The investigating police officer after preparation of the inquest report of the dead body of Mallika, sent the dead body for post mortem examination. During the course of investigation accused Rana Prasad Das, while he was in police custody, gave his statement before the I.O. and lead him in presence of the witnesses to discover articles belonging to the deceased from the place of hiding. Accused-Appellant led to discovery of an umbrella of the deceased and the bunch of keys of the office carried by deceased Mallika at the time of her death from the place of hiding. 7. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant, as well as Sri Tapan Mandal Under Section 302/201 IPC. 8. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses including the doctor (PW.12), who carried out the post mortem examination of the dead body, and the police officer (PW.21), who carried out the investigation of the case. On conclusion of the trial, the Appellant Rana Prasad Das, as well as Tapan Mandal were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The instant appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 9. It may be stated here that there was no eye witness to the occurrence to prove the offence of murder and concealment of the dead body. The instant appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 9. It may be stated here that there was no eye witness to the occurrence to prove the offence of murder and concealment of the dead body. The prosecution solely relied upon the circumstantial evidence, facts leading to discovery of certain articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das, and on the basis of the extrajudicial confession, made by the co-accused and also on the basis of the theory of last seen together. 10. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution may be stated in brief as follows: (1) The accused Appellant and Tapan Mandal were seen dragging a gunny bag in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh; later on the same gunny bag was found in the abandoned well behind the Panchayat Samiti Office in the BDO's office complex, from where the dead body of the missing Mallika was recovered. (2) Accused Appellant volunteered and led to discovery of an umbrella belonging to the deceased Mallika and a bunch of keys of the office, which Mallika was carrying at the time of occurrence. (3) That the accused Appellant was together with the deceased in the same complex, when the latter had gone to the B.D.O. Office to supply water, from where she never returned home. The Appellant was on duty at the relevant time in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh, when Mallika was in the office to supply water. (4) On many occasions deceased Mallika informed her mother as well as her friends that Rana Prasad Das used to look at her in indecent manner and as such she was afraid of him. (5) On discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the abandoned well Appellant became nervous and left the place. (6) Co-accused Tapan Mandal made extra-judicial confession involving the Appellant, for killing of Mallika, and himself for helping the Appellant to conceal the dead body. 11. Before we proceed to discuss the circumstances leading to death of Mallika, it would be necessary to ascertain as to whether the death was homicidal one, if so, whether it amounted to murder. 12. Dr. Ranjit Kr. 11. Before we proceed to discuss the circumstances leading to death of Mallika, it would be necessary to ascertain as to whether the death was homicidal one, if so, whether it amounted to murder. 12. Dr. Ranjit Kr. Das, PW-12, who carried out the post mortem examination of the victim, found the dead body in a decomposed state and thus could not ascertain the cause of death. However, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, who identified the dead body of deceased Mallika found the dead body in a closed gunny bag, which was thrown into an abandoned well situated beside the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh. Evidence on record emphatically established that Mallika was carrying water in the Office of the B.D.O before her death. Thus, it is apparent from the circumstances that the deceased Mallika did not die a natural death. She was done to death and thereafter she was packed in a gunny bag, which was eventually thrown into an abandoned well situated inside the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh. Therefore, though the cause of death could not be spelt out by the doctor(PW-12) performing post mortem examination, but the facts and circumstances in which the dead body of Mallika was discovered, as witnessed by the prosecution witnesses it is easily discernible that Mallika's death was homicidal in nature. 13. Before proceeding to discuss and appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant as well as the State Respondent, it would be appropriate to discuss herein below the sequence of events and the core of the evidence on record, which led to the missing of Mallika from the office of BDO, Bishalgarh and subsequent discovery of her dead body in an abandoned well situated nearby the said office. 14. On 22.08.2001 Anjali Majumder, PW-3, a friend of Mallika deposed that she visited the house of Mallika and stayed with her over night . In the early morning of 23.08.2001 both deceased Mallika and Anjali Majumder (PW-3) came out from their house. Thereafter, Anjali returned to her house and Mallika went to the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh, for supplying water. On 23.08.2001, Shri Narayan Das, PW-5, a tea stall owner, who had a tea stall by the side of the office of the BDO's office, saw Mallika entering into the office of BDO at about 7 a.m. in the morning. Thereafter, Anjali returned to her house and Mallika went to the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh, for supplying water. On 23.08.2001, Shri Narayan Das, PW-5, a tea stall owner, who had a tea stall by the side of the office of the BDO's office, saw Mallika entering into the office of BDO at about 7 a.m. in the morning. Shri Santosh Biswas, PW-15 also saw Mallika entering in the office of the BDO in the morning of 23.08.2001. Both the prosecution witnesses also confirmed that Mallika did not return home on 23.08.2001. As Mallika did not return home, her father came in search of Mallika and met with P Ws. 3, 5 and 15, but failed to get any trace of Mallika. Accordingly, her father, PW-2, submitted a missing information on 24.08.2001, in Bishalgarh Police Station. 15. Shri Dilip Shil, PW-7, who was working as daily rated worker (DRW), in the office of BDO, Bishalgarh also saw Mallika going to the office of BDO, in the morning, on 23.08.2001. PW-7 came to the tea stall of PW-5 in the morning of 23.08.2001 and took a cup of tea. P.W.7 stated that he used to work in the office from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. in the morning. Though P.W.7 was supposed to perform the duty as day guard on that day, but as he was suffering from fever, and pain on his teeth, he requested Appellant Rana Prasad Das to perform the duty on his behalf on that day. Accordingly on being agreed by the accused Appellant, PW-7 handed over the keys of the office with the Appellant and left for his house. However, after some time PW-7, while on his way home having realized that he had left his pen in the office, came back midway from his house and entered in the office. While doing so, he saw accused-Appellant Rana Prasad Das and accused Tapan Mandal dragging a gunny bag through the staircase from the first floor of the office towards the garage. On seeing them, PW-7 asked accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das as to what he was doing, who replied that he was removing some waste papers, articles and chips by putting in the said gunny bag. 16. On 28.08.2001, a foul smell was detected to be emanating from the abandoned well situated in the rare side of the office of the BDO. 16. On 28.08.2001, a foul smell was detected to be emanating from the abandoned well situated in the rare side of the office of the BDO. Having got the information, PW-15 and others went near the abandoned well and detected that a foul smell was coming out from the well and thus accordingly informed the Bishalgarh police. The police personnel with the help of sweeper brought out a closed gunny bag from the said well from where bad smell was coming. On opening the closed gunny bag, PW-15 and other witnesses saw the decomposed dead body of Mallika, which was kept concealed in the gunny bag. Father of deceased Mallika, PW-2, Shri Dayal Das PW-4, Smti. Mira Debnath PW-6, Shri Dilip Shil PW-7 and Shri Narayan Das PW-5, identified the dead body of Mallika after it was disinterred from the gunny bag. PW-7, who saw accused Rana Prasad Das and Tapan Mandal dragging the gunny bag on 23.08.2001, immediately, recognized the gunny bag to be the same gunny bag, which was being dragged by the accused Appellants on 23.08.2001. PW-6 observed that when the dead body of Mallika was disinterred from the well accused Rana Prasad Das became nervous and left the place of occurrence and absconded. 17. On the following day, after discovery of the dead body of Mallika, Shri Santosh Biswas, PW-15, who was present in a tea stall of PW-5, noticed that accused Tapan Mandal was loitering on the road restlessly. At that time one of the uncles of Tapan Mandal also informed PW-15 that on the previous night also accused Tapan Mandal was behaving restlessly. When accused Tapan Mandal was questioned by PW-15 he broke down and revealed before him that on the morning of 23.08.2001, while he was sweeping in the office of the BDO, he had seen Rana Prasad Das killing Mallika, when he raised alarm Rana Prasad Das threatened him with a dagger. Thereafter, the accused Tapan also confessed that Rana Prasad Das collected a gunny bag and put the dead body of Mallika in the said gunny bag and carried it bag with his help to the rear side of the office of the BDO and threw it into the abandoned well. After having come to know the above fact, PW-15 and others handed over Tapan Mandal to Bishalgarh Police Station. 18. After having come to know the above fact, PW-15 and others handed over Tapan Mandal to Bishalgarh Police Station. 18. According to the investigating officer (PW-21), after arrest of the accused Rana Prasad Das, on interrogation, he confessed his guilt and also informed the IO regarding concealment of an umbrella and a bunch of keys, which Mallika was possessing at the time of committing murder. The I.O. recorded the statement Ext.-11 of the accused-Appellant and proceeded to the place of occurrence with the witnesses. 19. On 03.09.2001, the Investigating Officer, P.W.21 visited the office of BDO along with accused Rana Prasad Das. In presence of witnesses PW 9, 16, 17 and 19, the accused-Appellant Rana Prasad Das, brought out a pink colored umbrella and a bunch of keys from two different places, where the items were kept concealed by the Appellant. 20. Ms. Kajal Rani PW-9, School mother working in the I.C D.S office, used to keep the bunch keys of the Office. P.W.9 specifically identified the bunch of keys, after the discovery was made by the Appellant and confirmed it to be the same bunch, which she had given to deceased Mallika in the morning hours on the date of occurrence. The umbrella which deceased Mallika had carried to the office on the date of occurrence was also identified by PW-1, mother of deceased Mallika, as the umbrella which belonged to deceased Mallika. 21. The evidence on record as reflected by P Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 clearly depicts that deceased Mallika used to carry water in both the office of BDO as well as ICDS every morning. PW18, who was the BDO in his deposition, affirmed that deceased Mallika used to work as water carrier in both the offices. PW-18 also confirmed that in the absence of Smti. Minati Debnath, PW-1, Mallika used to work as water carrier in both the offices. 22. There is no denial of the fact, as has been clearly established from the evidence of P Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15 that Mallika had gone to the office of BDO, Bishalgarh on 23.08.2001, in the morning, for carrying water as before. At the relevant time Mallika was wearing a salowar kamiz. At the relevant time Appellant Rana Prasad Das was in the office on duty. 23. At the relevant time Mallika was wearing a salowar kamiz. At the relevant time Appellant Rana Prasad Das was in the office on duty. 23. When we scrutinize the evidence of witnesses No. 1, 2, 3 and 11, we find that Mallika was carrying a ladies umbrella with her, when she came inside the office in the morning hours, on the date of occurrence, for carrying water. PW-9, who was the custodian of the keys of the office, in her deposition categorically confirmed to have given the bunch of keys to deceased Mallika on 23.08.2001. The chain of events affronted clearly depicts that Mallika went inside the office room on the fateful day of 23.08.2001, by carrying ladies umbrella and a bunch of keys, when the Appellant was in the office. Therefore, the recovery of the articles belonging to deceased Mallika on being led by the accused Appellant is a clinching piece of evidence on record against the accused-Appellant. 24. Evidence of PW-7 clearly revealed that he was suffering from fever and pain on his teeth on the date of occurrence and as such he had requested the accused/Appellant to perform his duty on that day, which was readily agreed by the accused/Appellant and accordingly PW-7 handed over the keys of the office, which he had received from the night guard. The fact was confirmed by PW-8, who was the night guard on duty. From the evidence of PW-5, the tea stall owner, it clearly transpires that Dinesh Paul, PW-8, and Dilip Shil, PW-7 came to his tea stall sat there for some time and after taking tea left for their respective houses in the morning of 23.08.2001. Further it has been confirmed by PW-5 and PW-15, who were present near the office of the BDO to have seen Mallika carrying water in the morning from the nearby water point situated by the side of the tea stall belonging to PW5. However, PW5 confirmed that he did not see Mallika going out from the office in the morning on the date of occurrence after completing her usual work. 25. The missing information of Mallika was lodged, by PW-2, which was entered in the GD Entry No. 803 dated 24.8.2001. However, PW5 confirmed that he did not see Mallika going out from the office in the morning on the date of occurrence after completing her usual work. 25. The missing information of Mallika was lodged, by PW-2, which was entered in the GD Entry No. 803 dated 24.8.2001. From the evidence of witnesses No. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 15, it clearly transpires that when the gunny bag was taken out from the abandoned well the dead body of Mallika, was found inside it. 26. The evidence of the investigating officer, PW-21, clearly reveals that after the arrest of Appellant Rana Prasad Das, he was remanded to police custody and during the aforesaid period, upon appropriate interrogation by him, the accused Appellant made a statement before, PW-21, to the effect that after killing Mallika he had concealed the umbrella and a bunch of keys, which were in her possession and Appellant would be able to show the place, where he had concealed the articles. The statement so made by the Appellant was recorded P.W.21 and it has been marked as Exbt.11. 27. In presence of the witnesses PW.16, 17 and 19 accused Appellant led PW.21 and the witnesses to the place, where he kept the umbrella belonging to deceased Mallika and the bunch of keys, which she was possessing at the relevant time. The umbrella of the deceased was kept by the accused behind the almirah in the engineer cell of the BDO's office and the bunch of keys was covered by the accused from the upper portion of the window of D.R.D.A section. The investigating officer seized the pink colored umbrella and the bunch of keys in presence of witnesses as shown and discovered by the Appellant. 28. Evidence of the P Ws 5, 7 & 8 corroborated by PW-18, the BDO, in charge of the office, confirmed with certainty that on 23.08.2001, accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das performed the duty of day guard and accused Appellant was present in the office at the relevant time, when deceased Mallika was in the office to supply water. PW-7 also identified the gunny bag in which the dead body of Mallika was kept concealed, which was being dragged by the accused Appellant on the date of occurrence. 29. PW-7 also identified the gunny bag in which the dead body of Mallika was kept concealed, which was being dragged by the accused Appellant on the date of occurrence. 29. The discoveries made by accused Appellant Rana Prasad Das voluntarily of the articles belonging to the deceased which he had kept concealed after killing Mallika, clearly and unequivocally leads to the inference that accused had committed the offence alleged against him. 30. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the theory of last seen spelt out by the PW5, the tea stall owner revealed that five persons namely Dilip Shil, Dinesh Paul, Basudev Das, Rana Prasad Das(Appellant) and Tapan Mandal(co-accused) returned to the office of the BDO, when Mallika was there inside the office. Learned Counsel submitted that when the deceased was seen in the company of five persons, there is no reason to isolate the accused from among the five persons to hold him guilty for the commission of the alleged crime. However, according to PW- 5, Narayan Das, witness Dinesh Paul (PW.8), Dilip Shil (PW-7) and Basudev Das came back from office and left for their residence. Thus it immerges is that at the relevant time accused Appellant and accused Tapan were only present in the office complex where Mallika was carrying water. Further more evidence of PW-8, Dinesh Paul confirmed that he being night guard handed over the keys to Dilip Shil (PW-7), who being unwell himself, in turn handed over the keys to accused Appellant Rana Prasad with a request to perform day guard duty on that day and left for his residence. The fact of accused Appellant being on duty from morning, on the date of occurrence, has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. 31. Mr. Bhowmik further submitted that since the co-accused has been acquitted of the charge of murder, the last seen theory seizes to be of incriminating character against the accused/Appellant. Learned Counsel has put reliance on the decision cited in AIR 1979 SC 1949 : Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra, to submit that since co accused was acquitted of the charge of murder and the State even did not choose to question his acquittal in this background the fact of deceased being seen last alive in the company of the accused Appellant would cease to be a circumstance of an incriminating character. The relevant observation made in Pohalya Motya Valvi(supra) reads as follows: 9. The first and the second circumstances relied upon by the High Court can be examined together. It is alleged that the deceased and the Appellant left their house together around 10 p.m. on 1st Oct. 1970 on their way to the house of Bhikjya in search of liquor. There is evidence of Bhikjya, P.W. 8 to that effect and it has been accepted by both the Courts. Ordinarily, when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive in company of each other and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is considered a circumstance of an incriminating character. According to Bhikjya, P. W 8 the Appellant and deceased Parshi Motya came to his house around midnight time and asked for two bottles of liquor. But further according to Bhikjya, at about that time accused No. 2, Bhamta also joined them. According to Bhikjya all the three, i.e. deceased, Appellant and Bhamta left his house together. Undoubtedly thereafter deceased was not seen alive by anyone but two persons were in company of the deceased, viz., Appellant and Bhamta when they left the house of Bhikjya. Now, Bhamta was the co-accused. This very circumstance has not been found to be of some importance against Bhamta. To some extent the circumstance ceases to be of an incriminating character because not only the Appellant should account for the disappearance of the deceased but simultaneously on evidence of Bhikjya, original accused No. 2 Bhamta would also be required to explain the same circumstance. Not only was Bhamta acquitted in respect of the offence, the State even did not choose to question his acquittal though it did prefer appeal against the acquittal of the present Appellant. In this background the fact that deceased was seen last alive in the company of the accused would cease to be a circumstance of an incriminating character. 32. However, in the present case, accused Appellant Rana Prasad and accused Tapan were found in the stairway of the BDO's office building by P.W.7 while dragging a gunny bag. The same gunny bag, was found in the abandoned well from where the dead body of Mallika was found out . 32. However, in the present case, accused Appellant Rana Prasad and accused Tapan were found in the stairway of the BDO's office building by P.W.7 while dragging a gunny bag. The same gunny bag, was found in the abandoned well from where the dead body of Mallika was found out . At the relevant time as affirmed by the other witnesses as stated above, deceased Mallika ought to have been in the said building. In the instant case unlike the case under reference the co-accused Tapan was also convicted under Section 201 IPC. On the other hand, both of the accused took the stand of total denial during trial. The accused/Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure did not come forward to explain the whereabouts of the deceased at the relevant time or as to where accused-Appellant was inside the complex when the deceased was supplying water in the complex. Therefore, in our considered opinion, on the factual back drop of the present case, the observation in Pohalya Motya Valvi(supra) cannot be applied. 33. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that since the time gap between the dates of last seen and the recovery of the dead body is five days, there is every possibility of any other hypothesis creeping in. In support of his contention learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in (2010) 4 GLR 82 : 2010 (2) GLT 405: Swapan Ch. Dey v. State of Tripura(Para-19, 37). 37. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the Courts should look for some corroboration. In the instants case, as stated supra the time gap between the point of time when the deceased and the accused-Appellant were last seen together and the dead body of the deceased was recovered was more than 24 hours and not only that such a story was first time stated before the learned trial Court by the prosecution witnesses, which should not be believed by a Court normally. Therefore, the last-seen theory, as alleged, fails. Therefore, the last-seen theory, as alleged, fails. Our aforesaid view gets support from the case of State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, AIR 1979 SC 1410 wherein the Apex Court observed: it is well settled that before a Court can act on circumstantial evidence the circumstances proved must be complete and of a conclusive nature so as to be fully inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. . . . . As there was sufficient interval between the death of the boy and the recovery of the body, the link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence does not appear to be fully complete. 34. It has been established in the present case that though the dead body was recovered after about five days, but the victim was not seen since the morning of 23.08.2001. The accused/Appellant was on day guard duty in the same complex where deceased was last seen working. There is no evidence on record to explain that accused/Appellant could have been outside the complex at the relevant time when the deceased was inside the complex, the occurrence took place. Though learned Counsel for the Appellant emphasized on the theory of last seen together to be the only piece of evidence against the accused/Appellant to scuttle the involvement of the Appellant, but at the same time, we cannot ignore that this is a case, which is not based solely on the theory of last seen together. There is other evidence on record, such as facts leading to discovery, coupled with other circumstances which pin pointedly established hypothesis of the guilt of the accused/Appellant. 35. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further pointed out that testimony of PW-7, Dilip Shil returning back from mid way to the office is not corroborated by PW-5, the tea stall owner. Therefore, the uncorroborated sole testimony of PW-7, cannot be relied on to convict the Appellant, in a case based on circumstantial evidence. More so, when PW-7 was one of the persons, who was last seen in the company of the deceased Mallika. Evidence of P.W.7 and other witnesses confirmed that P.W.7 did not attend the office on the date of occurrence due to his ill health. More so, when PW-7 was one of the persons, who was last seen in the company of the deceased Mallika. Evidence of P.W.7 and other witnesses confirmed that P.W.7 did not attend the office on the date of occurrence due to his ill health. PW-5, a tea stall owner happened to see PW-7, when he came and sat inside his tea stall for a cup of tea. Therefore, PW-5 cannot be expected to see PW.7 once again while returning to the office, when PW-7 came back to get back his pen. Therefore, in the circumstances, PW-5 cannot be expected to corroborate the fact of return of PW-7 from mid way from his house to get back his pen from the office. 36. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the confession to be admissible in evidence either it must admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially, all the facts which constitute the offence and further contended that since the maker of the statement i.e. the co-accused did not implicate himself substantially to the same extent as the Appellant, it is, therefore, not covered by Section-30 of the Evidence Act, and thus it cannot be treated as evidence against the co-accused. 37. In Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1096 , the question was raised before the Apex Court that it is not open to the Court to take the inculpatory part of the statement and reject the exculpatory part. However, their Lordships' rejected the contention, holding that if 'confessions' and 'admissions' are separable there can be no objection of taking of one part into consideration, which transpires to be true and reject the other part, which appears to be false. This view was taken on the basis of Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1969 SC 422 , wherein the Apex Court held that if the exculpatory part of the statement can be safely rejected, being found inherently improbable, in the light of other evidence on record, there is no impediment in law for the Court to act upon inculpatory part of the statement. In the instant case, accused Tapan Mandal made extrajudicial confession, clearly revealing that he had helped the co-accused in causing disappearance of the dead body of deceased Mallika. 38. In the instant case, accused Tapan Mandal made extrajudicial confession, clearly revealing that he had helped the co-accused in causing disappearance of the dead body of deceased Mallika. 38. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, questioning the veracity of extra judicial confession made by accused Tapan Mandal in presence of PW-15, submitted that the extra judicial confession was made for the first time in the Court. However, such fact was not confronted either to PW-15 during the cross examination of the IO, PW-21, if at all the witness PW-15 had not stated about the extra judicial confession made by Tapan Mandal during the investigation. Therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant cannot be entertained as acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case, without proof of such contradictions sought to be established. 39. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180 , the Apex Court dealing with the reliability and acceptability of extra judicial confession of an accused, held at as follows: 18. Confessions may be divided into two classes i.e. judicial and extra judicial. Judicial confessions are those which are made before a Magistrate or a court in the course of judicial proceedings. extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or court. extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 does not apply. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: (i) were they made voluntarily? And (ii) are they true? It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 does not apply. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: (i) were they made voluntarily? And (ii) are they true? As the Section enacts, a confession made by an accused persons is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, (1) having reference to the charge against the accused person, (2) proceeding from a person in authority, and (3) sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. It follows that a confession would be voluntary if it is made by the accused in a fit state of mind, and if it is not caused by any inducement, threat or promise which has reference to the charge against him, proceeding from a person in authority. It would not be involuntary, if the inducement, (a) does not have reference to the charge against the accused person; or (b) it does not proceed from a person in authority; or (c) it is not sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that, by making it, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. Whether or not the confession was voluntary would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, judged in the light of Section 24. The law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the court is avoid any evil, it is enough to exclude the confession. The words "appear to him" in the last part of the Section refer to the mentality of the accused. 19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The words "appear to him" in the last part of the Section refer to the mentality of the accused. 19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a resumption 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. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness 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. 40. Learned Counsel further drew our attention and submitted that the extra judicial confession made by the accused Tapan Mandal clearly shows that it was not made voluntarily, but under coercion and compulsion and therefore hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. 41. When we closely examine the evidence of PW.15, it transpires that PW.15 was not inimical to the accused/Appellant and no motive is discernible from the evidence on record, to implicate the accused/Appellant falsely in this case. 42. 41. When we closely examine the evidence of PW.15, it transpires that PW.15 was not inimical to the accused/Appellant and no motive is discernible from the evidence on record, to implicate the accused/Appellant falsely in this case. 42. Confession relieves a human being from mental stress, therefore, breaking down and crying during a confession is but a natural reaction in a human being and, therefore, it cannot be treated to be an abnormal situation warranting suspicion. More so, no coercion or force was alleged to have been made by PW.15 on accused Tapan, before making confession. 43. Learned Counsel further contended that since the discovery of the articles was made in a conspicuous place by the Appellant, it cannot be wholly relied on to convict the Appellant. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 1021 : Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu. The relevant observation made in Mani (supra) reads as follows: 6. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house where alleged bloodstains were found belonged exclusively or was possessed exclusively by the Appellant, we have further pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical. There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes belonged to the Appellants. There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery, it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the courts below have ignored this very important aspect. Once these two important circumstances are disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to support the prosecution theory. 44. In the case of Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu(supra) discovery was suspect since no attempt was made to prove that the clothes belonged to the Appellant. In the instant case all the items discovered by the Appellant were specifically identified by the witnesses to be of the deceased, therefore, the above decision in Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu(supra) cannot be pressed into service on behalf of the Appellant. In the instant case all the items discovered by the Appellant were specifically identified by the witnesses to be of the deceased, therefore, the above decision in Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu(supra) cannot be pressed into service on behalf of the Appellant. 45. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that since the cause of death could not be ascertained and the dead body was found to be advanced stage of decomposition, the accused could not have been convicted for the offence alleged. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on a decision reported in AIR 1991 SC 1224 : Kedar Nath etc. v. State of M.P. The relevant observation made in Kedar Nath(supra) reads as follows: 6. Though there is no specific evidence as to the cause of death the prosecution proceeded on the presumption from the recovery of an empty cartridge seized from the side of the dead body that the deceased should have been murdered by shooting. Apart from this conjecture there is no evidence how the deceased met his end. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the finding of both the courts below as the evidence relating to the murder charge is insufficient and is not worthy of acceptance. 46. At the cost of repetition we would like to say again that Dr. Ranjit Kr. Das, PW-12, who carried out the post mortem examination of the victim found the dead body in a decomposed state and thus could not ascertain the cause of death. However, the prosecution witnesses identified the dead body of deceased Mallika when it was taken out from a closed gunny bag. Evidence on record adduced by the prosecution emphatically established that Mallika was carrying water in the B.D.O's Office complex just before her death. Further, it is apparent from the facts and circumstances established by the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Mallika did not die a natural death. If she would have died of natural cause, she would not have been found in a gunny bag. She was done to death and thereafter she was packed in a gunny bag, which was thrown into an abandoned well situated beside the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh. If she would have died of natural cause, she would not have been found in a gunny bag. She was done to death and thereafter she was packed in a gunny bag, which was thrown into an abandoned well situated beside the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh. Therefore, though the cause of death could not be spelt out by the doctor performing post mortem examination, but the circumstances in which the dead body of Mallika was discovered coupled with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is easily discernible that Mallika's death was homicidal in nature. 47. As mentioned earlier, the prosecution case entirely rests upon certain incriminating circumstances, and circumstantial evidence against the accused Appellant, therefore, all the circumstances must form a complete chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused leaving no scope of doubt of innocence of the accused. 48. In Hanumant v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 by the Apex Court observed that it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such, as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 49. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand, AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out golden principles relating to circumstantial evidence, wherein Their Lordships have held that before an accused is held guilty of a criminal offence on the basis of circumstantial evidence the following conditions must be fulfilled- (i)The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) There should be excluded every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Case law discussed. 50. In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3390 , Pedala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79 , and the current judgment of Vinay D. Nagar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 1559, the Apex Court has restated the principle of recording conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence as follows: The principle of law is well established that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and the facts, so established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude hypothesis than the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 51. As a mater of fact, the sheer truth that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased would not necessarily lead to the irresistible inference that the accused must have committed the murder. However, if the fact of "last seen together" is established and the accused fails to explain as to how his companion met with an unnatural death, then this fact would become highly incriminating and an inference of the guilt of the accused can be drawn. However, if the fact of "last seen together" is established and the accused fails to explain as to how his companion met with an unnatural death, then this fact would become highly incriminating and an inference of the guilt of the accused can be drawn. However, consistent with the settled legal principle the involvement of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. An accused should ordinarily be not held guilty of the crime on the sole ground that he was "last seen together" with the deceased, some further circumstances must also be proved by the prosecution to complete the chain ending with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The Apex Court has held in the case of Babu v. Babu, (2003) 7 SCC 37 , that once the fact of "last seen together" is proved, it is for the accused to explain the said circumstance. In the instant case, we do not find any clarification by the accused Appellant to dispel the incriminating circumstances revealed in the prosecution case. 52. Coming to the case at hand, we find that PW 5, saw both the Appellant and accused Tapan going to the office of the B.D.O, where deceased Mallika was busy carrying water. The Appellant was the day guard on duty in the office, on the date of occurrence. PW 7 on returning to the office saw accused Appellant and Tapan dragging and shifting a gunny bag in the stair case of the office. The same gunny bag was found in the abandoned well of the office with Mallika's dead body in it. The deceased was found missing since that morning from the Office of the BDO, Bishalgarh, when accused Appellant and convict Tapan were also present. We do not find any sharp cross-examination of the witnesses in this regard, nor any suggestion was given to the witnesses to the effect that during the crucial morning hours either the Appellant or the deceased was at some other place. No explanation was given by the accused-Appellant either during trial or during his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure as to what happened to Mallika, who was together with him in the building at the relevant time. Hence, we find no difficulty to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the aforesaid incriminating circumstance against the accused Appellant. 53. Hence, we find no difficulty to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the aforesaid incriminating circumstance against the accused Appellant. 53. Though there is no eye witness to the murder of deceased Mallika, but the evidence on record and the chain of events and the circumstances discussed above and the discovery of the articles belonging to the deceased, at the instance of the accused Appellant, from the place of hiding and the recovery of the gunny bag containing the dead body of the deceased from the abandoned well of the same office complex, clearly established the complicity of the accused/Appellant. 54. The accused Appellant and convict Tapan Mandal were seen dragging a gunny bag in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh; later on the same gunny bag was found in the abandoned well of the BDO's office, from where the dead body of the missing Mallika was discovered. Accused Appellant volunteered and led to discovery of an umbrella belonging to the deceased Mallika and the bunch of keys of the office which Mallika was carrying at the time of occurrence. The accused Appellant was together with the deceased, when the latter had gone to the B.D.O. Office to carry water, from where she never returned, instead her dead body was found in an abandoned well situated inside the Office complex. The Appellant was on duty at the relevant time in the office of the BDO, Bishalgarh, when Mallika was in the office to supply water. On discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the abandoned well Appellant became nervous and left the place. Co-accused Tapan Mandal made extra-judicial confession implicating the Appellant for killing of Mallika and involving him in helping the Appellant to remove and conceal the dead body. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial evidence in a chorus echoed one inference that the accused-Appellant Rana Prasad Das after committing murder of the deceased Mallika, put her in a gunny bag and to cause disappearance of the dead body threw the gunny bag in the abandoned well situated within the premises of the BDO's office at Bishalgarh with the help of convict Tapan Mandal. 55. 55. After having thoroughly analyzed the entire evidence on record, we hold that the incriminating circumstances discussed above have affirmed a complete chain of events to establish that the facts are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. All the circumstances as discussed above lead to the conclusion of guilt of the Appellant without leaving any scope to exclude any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. 56. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 302 and 201 IPC as recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 57. Send back the LCR, together with a copy of this judgment and order immediately, to the learned trial Court. Appeal dismissed