JUDGMENT : - ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.: The death reference for confirmation of sentence of death passed against the convicts Bappa Das and Biswajit Sadhukhan and the criminal appeal by the said convicts against their conviction and sentence arises out of a Judgment and order passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, rd Court, Barrackpore in a sessions trial held before him, where the convicts were charged under Section 364A read with Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the aforesaid trial both Bappa Das and Biswajit Sadhukhan were convicted under Sections 302/34 as well as under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereunder both of them were sentenced to death and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years respectively and to pay fine with default clause on each count. 2. The prosecution case in brief runs as follows; The victim Sharmistha Das @ Ria, who was aged about 7 years at the time of the alleged occurrence was the daughter of P.W. 1 Shyamal Das. On November 26, 2006 at about 18 hours the convict Bappa Das, who happened to be the first cousin of the victim Ria came to their residence and took her out for a cycle ride in presence of her parents the P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. Since the victim girl did not return home till 7 p.m. her mother (P.W. 4) informed her brother Balai Das (P.W. 2). When Balai Das came to their house and contacted convict Bappa Das over Mobile and at around 8-30 p.m. Bappa contacted Balai Das over phone and enquired whether victim has been traced out or not and at about 9 p.m. Bappa came to their house and told the P.W. 4 mother of the victim that he dropped Ria long before in front of their house. In the meantime, the said Balai Das in his Mobile received a threat call and he was told that if anything about the missing of Ria was informed to the police then he will be murdered. The P.W. 9 Moutusi Sarkar also saw both Bappa and victim together in the market at around 6-30 p.m. Beside the P.W. 9, two other witnesses Ranjit Das P.W. 5 and Buro Saha P.W. 10, who are the neighbours of the victim also found her in the cycle of Bappa at Basudebpur crossing of highway. The P.W. 9 Moutusi Sarkar also saw both Bappa and victim together in the market at around 6-30 p.m. Beside the P.W. 9, two other witnesses Ranjit Das P.W. 5 and Buro Saha P.W. 10, who are the neighbours of the victim also found her in the cycle of Bappa at Basudebpur crossing of highway. Since till midnight the victim did not return home and could not be traced out, her father apprehending that she had been kidnapped reported the incident to the Jagaddal Police Station when a case under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In connection with the said case on November 27, 2006 at early morning the police arrested convict Bappa Das and during police remand at night on November 28, 2006 Bappa Das made a statement to the police leading to arrest of the other accused and whereabouts of the place where the dead body and the offending rope have been concealed. Pursuant to such statement police arrested the other convict Biswajit Sadhukhan and another, viz., Rajat Adhikary when the accused Biswajit Sadhukhan also made similar statement as that of the accused Bappa. Thereafter, on November 29, 2006 at around 22-40 hours on being led by the arrested accused persons police recovered the dead body of victim girl and the rope used in her killing. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 364A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused persons including both the convicts and another. 3. The charge-sheeted accused persons, viz., Rajat Adhikary and Biswajit Sadhukhan before the Trial Court took a plea of juvenility, the Learned Court held an enquiry and in the said enquiry as Rajat Adhikary was found to be a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, his case was transferred to the juvenile court. However, plea of juvenility of the accused Biswajit Sadhukhan was rejected. Then the accused Biswajit Sadhukhan challenged the said order before this Court when the Trial Court was directed to re-consider his plea of juvenility. When the Trial Court held a fresh enquiry and concluded that he was not juvenile. However such order whereby the plea of the accused Biswajit Sadhukhan was turned down by the Trial Court not being challenged before any Court, reached its finality. 4. When the Trial Court held a fresh enquiry and concluded that he was not juvenile. However such order whereby the plea of the accused Biswajit Sadhukhan was turned down by the Trial Court not being challenged before any Court, reached its finality. 4. Although, in one single appeal both the convicts Bappa Das and Biswajit Sadhukhan challenged their conviction before this Court but at the time of hearing of the appeal they were represented and defended by two different lawyers. Accordingly, their respective cases are also dealt with separately. 5. This is a case where there was no eyewitness to the incident of murder of victim Sarmistha Das @ Ria and the prosecution has entirely relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the charge against them. The circumstances so relied are as follows; (a) The victim Sarmistha Das @ Ria was last found alive in the company of the accused persons. (b) On November 26, 2006 at about 6 p.m. the accused Bappa Das, a cousin of the victim came to their residence and in presence of her parents took her out for a cycle ride. (c) On the day between 6 to 6-30 p.m. the witness Moutusi Sarkar P.W. 9, a friend of the victim found her in the cycle of Bappa at the local market when she had a talk with the victim. Sometime thereafter Ranjit Das P.W. 5 and Buro Saha P.W. 10 both found the victim Ria in the cycle of Bappa together with two other accuseds to accompany in their respective cycles. (d) After their arrest the statements of the accused persons were recorded by the police and pursuant to such statements on November 29, 2006 at about 2-45 hours the accused led the police team to a place situated at the western side of Kalyani Road near Reliance Petrol Pump, Purba Bidyadharpur Uchalghar and from inside a bush the dead body of the victim and the rope by which she was strangulated were discovered at their instance. (e) According to the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the death was due to the effect of asphyxia resulting from ligature and manual strangulation, anti mortem and homicidal in nature. 6. (e) According to the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the death was due to the effect of asphyxia resulting from ligature and manual strangulation, anti mortem and homicidal in nature. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan contended before us the conviction of the appellant is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and according to him since the chain of circumstance is not complete and vital links are missing the order of conviction of the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan cannot be sustained and he is entitled to an acquittal. In support of his contention he urged the following points :- (a) There is no whisper about any enticement and or kidnapping of victim Ria by the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan. (b) There is no witness, who saw convict Biswajit Sadhukhan to take away the victim from her residence. (c) No incriminating materials were recovered from the custody of the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan. (d) The convict Biswajit Sadhukhan was arrested on the basis of statement of a co-accused, which is a very weak piece of evidence. (e) After the alleged incident the convict was very much there in his house and made no attempt to abscond, which is a clear indication to show that he was never involved in the alleged offence. (f) The defacto-complainant, the father of the victim girl in his FIR has not implicated the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan as one of the kidnapper of his daughter. (g) The P.W. 9 Moutusi Sarkar never claimed to find victim in the company of the convict. (h) Although, according to the P.W. 5 Ranjit Das he informed the defacto-complainant P.W. 1 about the fact that he saw his daughter with three boys and such information was given to the defacto-complainant before lodging of the FIR, but no such disclosure was made in the FIR. (i) Since the T.I. Parade Magistrate was examined, nor the T.I. Parade memo was exhibited, the alleged identification of the convict in the T.I. Parade is of no value and in absence thereof his identification in Court assumed no importance. The Learned Counsel of the appellant no. 2 on the point of circumstances of last seen together relied on the decision of Keshav Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 284 ; on the question of substantial evidence in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. The Learned Counsel of the appellant no. 2 on the point of circumstances of last seen together relied on the decision of Keshav Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 284 ; on the question of substantial evidence in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2009 SC 963 and on the point of recovery of offending articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 2003 SC 4377 . He has also cited various other authorities on the same point, we do not consider it necessary to refer those decisions which are mere repetition on the same points. Lastly, it has been vehemently contended by the Learned defence Counsel, since there is no material to justify conviction of the appellant Biswajit Sadhukhan for committing murder of Ria, the question of sentencing him to death does not at all arise. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict Bappa Das challenged his conviction on the following grounds; (a) Not only the entire statement of the convict recorded under Section 161 of the Code has been exhibited and marked as Exhibit – 14 during the trial, the same also did not bear the signature of the accused persons. Thus, no part of such statement even with the aid of Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be acted upon. (b) No motive has been attributed. (c) The evidence of P.W. 9 Moutusi Sarkar cannot be acted upon as she failed to identify the convict in Court. (d) According to the P.W. 5 Ranjit Das and P.W. 10 Buro Saha they identified the convict Bappa Das in the light of tae vapour street lamp they identified the convict Bappa Das, who was carrying victim Ria in his cycle, but in the sketch map existence of any street lamp has been mentioned. (e) Although, FIR is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case, still it is very much essential that same must contain the vital and material facts of the case but in the case at hand in the FIR no allegation has been made by the father of the victim girl P.W. 1 Shyamal Das that the convict has kidnapped his daughter. (f) According to the post mortem report partially digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased and there was no decomposition, thus there is no question of killing of the victim by the convict. (g) The Trial Court relied on alleged incriminating circumstances against the convict without putting the same to him in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code. (h) No reliance can be placed on the T.I. Parade as neither the Magistrate, who conducted the T.I. Parade was examined nor the T.I. Parade memo was exhibited. (i) No person residing in and around the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered was examined and the prosecution has admitted to prove the recovery of the dead body and the rope on the evidence of highly interested witnesses, who are happened to be the close relations of the defacto complainant Shyamal Das. (j) In absence of receipt of the FSL Report as to the cause of death the convict cannot be held guilty for murder. (k) The Investigating Officer claimed in his examination-in-chief that he arrested convict Bappa Das on 27.11.2006, but in his cross-examination he stated that Bappa Das was arrested by him at about 2-45 P.M. on 27.11.2006. (l) The prosecution case ought to be disbelieved as P.W. 2 clearly admitted that after recovery of the dead body the FIR was lodged but nothing as to the same has been mentioned in the FIR. The Learned Counsel of the appellant Bappa Das cited the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ghudan, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 801 on the point of non-mentioning of street lamp in the site plan; on the point of substantial evidence in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1985 SCC (Cri) 487; on the point of death sentence in the case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150 and on the point of last seen together in the case of Ravinder Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3494 . The Learned Counsel also cited several other authorities, since the same were on the same point, we do not feel to refer the same in our decision as the same would be mere repetition. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3494 . The Learned Counsel also cited several other authorities, since the same were on the same point, we do not feel to refer the same in our decision as the same would be mere repetition. Lastly, it has been vehemently contended by the Learned defence Counsel that this is not a rarest of rare cases, and as such the imposition of sentence of death is not at all deserved. 8. On the other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor supports the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and submitted it may not be case where the death sentence be imposed, but there is no scope to interfere with the order of conviction which is well reasoned and is wholly justified. 9. So far as the submissions of the learned advocate of the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan is concerned, we do not find much force in the same. It was never the prosecution case that this convict kidnapped the victim Ria from her residence. Therefore, non-mentioning of such fact or absence of any witness of such kidnap is of no consequence. The arrest of this convict on the statement of a co-accused is mere a clue to the Investigating Agency to unearth perpetrator of crime and that was never used as an evidence. The fact the P.W. 9 Moutusi Sarkar did not find the victim in the company of the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan is also of no consequence since his participation in the offence was attributed from the stage when the victim Ria was allegedly found in the company of the P.W. 5 Ranjit Das and P.W. 10 Buro Saha. So far as his that submissions the convict has not absconded after the occurrence and T.I. Parade Magistrate was not examined and the T.I. Parade memo was also not exhibited, in our opinion certainly requires due consideration by this Court to ascertain the guilt of this convict. The rest of his submission is wholly irrelevant and merits no consideration. 10. This is a case where the victim Ria died a homicidal death due to strangulation has not been disputed but question arises for decision as to whether the two convicts Bappa Das and Biswajit Sadhukhan are the author of such crime. 11. The prosecution case against the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan is essentially based on two circumstances. 10. This is a case where the victim Ria died a homicidal death due to strangulation has not been disputed but question arises for decision as to whether the two convicts Bappa Das and Biswajit Sadhukhan are the author of such crime. 11. The prosecution case against the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan is essentially based on two circumstances. Firstly, on the circumstance that when Ria was last found alive in the company of the accused Bappa, in his cycle near Basudebpur crossing of highway soon before her death by the two prosecution witnesses, viz., Ranjit Das P.W. 5 and Buro Saha P.W. 10, this convict and another were also with them in their respective cycles. Secondly, on the circumstance that after his arrest this accused made a statement before the Investigating Officer of the case and in consequence of the information received from the said accused, out of his such statement and being led by him, the dead body of the victim and the rope by which she was strangulated and done to death were discovered from inside a bush. 12. According to the witnesses Ranjit Das P.W. 5 and Buro Saha P.W. 10, on November 26, 2006 (i.e. on the date of the alleged incident) at about 18-30 hours while both of them were together at Basudebpur crossing of High Road, at that time in the street light they found the victim Ria Das in the company of three unknown boys. During the trial both of them identified the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan as one of the said boys and further claimed that they also identified him in the T.I. Parade held soon after their arrest. According to the P.W. 5 Ranjit Das at that time one boy of black complexion was carrying Ria in his cycle and proceeding towards Panpur through the High Road, while two other boys in two different cycles were also proceeding with them side by side and they were talking with each other. Whereas, according to the P.W. 10 Buro Saha, he saw one boy of black complexion was carrying Ria in his cycle and proceeding towards Panpur and after about 2/3 minutes he found one boy of fair complexion and another boy of black complexion were also going towards the Panpur side. Whereas, according to the P.W. 10 Buro Saha, he saw one boy of black complexion was carrying Ria in his cycle and proceeding towards Panpur and after about 2/3 minutes he found one boy of fair complexion and another boy of black complexion were also going towards the Panpur side. The P.W. 10 while identifying the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan once again stated in his evidence that after about 2/3 minutes Bappa went with the victim towards Panpur, this convict and another boy also went towards the Panpur side in their cycles. Now, having gone through the evidence of the P.W. 5 and P.W. 10 we find the prosecution case that while other accused Bappa with Ria in his cycle was going towards Panpur, this convict and another also proceeded with them side by side in their respective cycles towards the same direction and were found at Basudebpur crossing at the same time is apparently contradictory. While, the P.W. 5 stated in his evidence all the three boys in three different cycles, with victim Ria in one cycle were proceeding towards Panpur together and were talking with each other but according to the P.W. 10 Buro Saha 2/3 minutes after one of the accused Bappa Das went towards Panpur with the victim Ria in his cycle, he found the accused Biswajit Sadhukhan and another to proceed towards the same direction in two different cycles. Thus, on the face of the evidence of P.W. 10 Buro Saha, this convict Biswajit Sadhukhan was not there, at Basudebpur crossing while the victim Ria in the cycle of another convict Bappa Das was passing through that spot as have been alleged by the P.W. 5 Ranjit Das. Accordingly, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the prosecution case that the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan was also with another convict Bappa Das while he was taking Ria in his cycle and proceeding towards the Panpur side. Consequently, the question whether this convict was identified or not by the P.W. 5 and P.W. 10 in the T.I. Parade loses all its importance. 13. Consequently, the question whether this convict was identified or not by the P.W. 5 and P.W. 10 in the T.I. Parade loses all its importance. 13. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan is the discovery of the dead body of the victim Ria and the rope with the help of which she was strangulated in consequence of the information given by the said accused to the police and on being led by him. According to the Investigating Officer of the case P.W. 18 on November 27, 2006 at about 5-15 hours he arrested accused Bappa Das and thereafter on November 28, 2006 at about 20 hours he recorded his statement and in such statement not only the said accused confessed his guilt and revealed the name of the other culprits including the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan but also disclosed the place where her dead body and the offending rope were concealed. The said statement of the convict during trial was marked as Exhibit – 14. According to the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W. 18 that as per the statement of accused Bappa Das he arrested the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan @ Bubai and Rajat Adhikary from their respective residence at the midnight of November 29, 2006, thereafter he recorded the statement of convict Biswajit Sadhukhan. It was his further evidence that Biswajit Sadhukhan told him that he would be able to show the place where the dead body as well as the rope with the help of which the deceased was strangulated have been concealed by them. The said statement was exhibited during trial and was marked Exhibit – 14/1. We have gone through both the Exhibit – 14 and 14/1 and found while Exhibit – 14 was recorded on November 28, 2006 the Exhibit – 14/1 was recorded on November 29, 2006. The said statement was exhibited during trial and was marked Exhibit – 14/1. We have gone through both the Exhibit – 14 and 14/1 and found while Exhibit – 14 was recorded on November 28, 2006 the Exhibit – 14/1 was recorded on November 29, 2006. Thus, taking into account the aforesaid fact into consideration, we have no doubt that before the statement of Biswajit Sadhukhan was recorded whereby the police was informed about whereby the police was informed about the place where the dead body of the victim and the offending rope were concealed, the same was known to the police pursuant to the statement of other convict, viz., Bappa Das, consequently the statement of Biswajit Sadhukhan Exhibit –14 neither can be admitted nor can be acted upon with the aid of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is true the evidence of circumstances simpliciter that an accused led a police officer and pointed out the place where the offending articles or weapons or the subject of offence were found hidden would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of the fact the disclosure statement by such accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, in absence of any other credible materials, in our opinion it will be completely unsafe to uphold the conviction of convict Biswajit Sadhukhan solely on such evidence and he is entitled to an acquittal. 14. So far as the convict Bappa Das is concerned the case of the prosecution rest on the following materials :- (a) The evidence of P.W. 1 Shyamal Das and P.W. 4 Ratna Das the parents of the victim Ria. According to whom this convict took their daughter from their house in their presence on 26th November, 2006 on the pretext of a cycle ride and thereafter their daughter did not return home. (b) On 26th of November, 2006 at about 6-30 p.m. at Basudebpur crossing of Highway, in the street lamp saw this appellant taking Ria in his cycle was proceeding towards Panpur. (c) After this convict being arrested on 27th of November, 2006 he was interrogated by the police and during such interrogation he disclosed the place where the dead body of Ria and the offending rope were hidden. 15. (c) After this convict being arrested on 27th of November, 2006 he was interrogated by the police and during such interrogation he disclosed the place where the dead body of Ria and the offending rope were hidden. 15. Now, having gone through the deposition of P.W. 1 Shyamal Das as well as P.W. 4 Ratna Das we find it is their categorical evidence that on 26th of November, 2006 at about 5-30 p.m. their nephew convict Bappa Das came to their residence in a cycle and thereafter at about 6 p.m. he took the victim Ria out for a cycle ride and since then she never returned and subsequently found murdered. So far as the P.W. 1 is concerned prosecution in his cross-examination only suggested to him that it is not true that the accused took her daughter for a cycle ride from their residence on 26th November, 2006 at 6 p.m. but the witness denied such suggestion. So far as the P.W. 4 is concerned it was suggested to her that she did not tell the police that on 26th November, 2006 “like other days” Bappa took her daughter which she denied and according to the Investigating Officer of the case no such statement was made to him by the said witness. However, we find from the evidence in chief of the P.W. 4 Ratna Das that she never deposed that the convict took her daughter for a cycle ride “like other days”. Therefore, it cannot be said that her evidence in Court stands contradicted by her statement made to the police during investigation. Even assuming that she has not stated to the police “like other days” the convict took the victim for a cycle ride, in our opinion such omission would have no impact on the credibility of the P.W. 4 and such omission does not amount to a contradiction. 16. Admittedly, the convict Bappa Das was not known to P.W. 5 Ranjit Das and P.W. 10 Buro Saha, who saw him taking away victim Ria in his cycle near Basudebpur crossing of the highway road. However, the said witnesses identified him in the Court and claimed to have identified during the T.I. Parade, although neither the Magistrate, who held the T.I. Parade nor the T.I. Parade memo was exhibited during the trial. However, the said witnesses identified him in the Court and claimed to have identified during the T.I. Parade, although neither the Magistrate, who held the T.I. Parade nor the T.I. Parade memo was exhibited during the trial. Now, even accepting the argument of the Learned defence Counsel since the Learned Magistrate, who held the T.I. Parade was not examined during the trial nor the T.I. Parade memo was exhibited, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of the said witnesses as to the identification of the convict that he is the person, who was found carrying Ria in his cycle, still we are constrained to accept the prosecution case that the convict Bappa Das was the person, who was found carrying Ria in his cycle near Basudebpur crossing and was proceeding towards the direction of Panpur area from which place the dead body of Ria was subsequently recovered, for the simple reason that during the cross-examination of P.W. 5, a photograph was exhibited at the instance of the defence and was marked as Exhibit – “A” and such photograph being shown to the witness by the defence, he pointed out the person on the right hand side of the photograph was the person, who was found carrying Ria in his cycle and that person is the present convict accused Bappa Das. Moreover, while identification during trial is substantial evidence, the identification in T.I. Parade is mere a corroborative piece of evidence. Thus, in absence of evidence of T.I. Parade Court can very well be act on the identification in court when there is nothing to doubt such identification. In this case as already found the convict has been identified as the accused on the strength of a photograph at the instance of the defence, in our opinion there will be no wrong to accept his identification in court by the witnesses even though the Magistrate who held the T.I. Parade has not been examined nor the T.I. Parade memo was exhibited. 17. 17. So far as the evidence of P.W. 9 Moutusi Sarkar is concerned, who claimed to have seen the victim Ria with the convict Bappa Das in his cycle near the market between 6 to 6-30 p.m., we are not going to put any reliance thereupon due to the reason the said Moutusi Sarkar failed to identify Bappa Das in Court and although Bappa Das was very much present in Court at the time of examination of the said witness, as it appears from the records, still she stated in the Court that the said Bappa Das was not present in Court. 18. Now, coming to the Exhibit – 14/1, which according to the prosecution is the statement of the convict Bappa Das recorded in police custody and in consequence information furnished thereunder the dead body of the victim Ria and the offending rope were recovered, we find the Trial Court has committed a gross mistake in exhibiting the entire statement of the convict recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection it is well advised the Learned Trial Judge must know that the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not permit admission into evidence and to mark as exhibit the whole statement of an accused which he allegedly made during police custody admitting his guilt in the commission of the crime, even though such statement also contains an information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered in consequence thereof. The only part of the information which distinctly relates to the fact, discovered in consequence of such information is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, although made by an accused during his police custody. In other words, only that part of the disclosure statement that the accused was ready to show the place where he has concealed the wearing apparels of the deceased or the dead body or the offending weapon even when made during the police custody become admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when in consequence of such information the accused led the police party to the place where such articles have been concealed and same were discovered, but not the other part stating the mode and manner in which the crime was committed. 19. 19. In the present case we find from going through the Exhibit – 14 that the same does not contain the signature of the convict/appellant. Now, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal 3992, where the Apex Court held, the absence of signature or thumb impression of an accused on the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement, we also kept the Exhibit – 14 out of our consideration. Even though the Exhibit – 14 cannot be put into service by the prosecution in support of its case against the convict Bappa Das as we find that same cannot be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still the evidence that it is the convict, he took the police party to the place where the dead body of victim Ria and the rope with the help of which she was strangulated and killed and pointed out the same to the police certainly be admitted as his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is well settled that the evidence of circumstances, simpliciter, when an accused led a police officer and pointed out the place where the subject of offence and articles of crime or the weapons was found hidden would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of the fact the disclosure statement by such accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this connection reliance may be placed in the case of A. N. Venkatesh & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3809 and in the case of Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1979 SC 400 . At this stage this Court also feels to refer a very vital circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused appearing from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the convict was found proceeding towards the Panpur area taking the victim in his cycle and subsequently her dead body was found from a place situated at Panpur. In this connection, in our opinion it would be more apposite to refer one of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. In this connection, in our opinion it would be more apposite to refer one of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 471 , which is quoted below; “Three possibilities are there when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by him. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by him. ……” In this connection it may be noted that the dead body as well as the offending rope were recovered by the Investigating Officer of the case in presence of the independent witnesses from a place on being pointed out by the convict Bappa Das in presence of the witnesses P.W. 2 Balai Das, P.W. 3 Madhab Chandra Das and P.W. 7 Manas Mondal, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. However, during the examination of this convict Bappa Das under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a question was put to him drawing his attention to such fact the accused did not offer any explanation how he came to know about such concealment, accordingly in our opinion this circumstance would certainly go against him pointing his guilt. 20. 20. The Learned Counsel of the convict Bappa Das strenuously argued in the sketch maps/sight plans, there is no mention about the existence of street lamp, although P.W. 5 Ranjit Das and P.W. 10 Buro Saha came to have identified the convict carrying in his cycle victim Ria Das while they are passing through the Basudebpur crossing of highway. Accordingly, he submits that the identification of the appellant by the said witnesses is quite doubtful. It is true when in a case a witness came to have identified the miscreants at the time of occurrence in the light of a street lamp and in the place of occurrence no existence of any street lamp in the sight plan, then in that case such identification become doubtful. However, in the present case two sketch maps were exhibited during the trial, one in respect of the place from where the victim was kidnapped by this convict and another in respect of the place where the dead body of the victim Ria was concealed after the crime. No sketch map in respect of the place where the victim in the company of the convict was found by the witnesses nearly after half an hour she was taken out from her residence, in our opinion it is not at all necessary to prepare site plan of every places, where the victim was found after the kidnapped in the company of the accused as well as in the aforesaid two site plans. The submission of the Learned Counsel is absolutely without any merit. The decision he cited in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ghudan, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 801 has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. According to the Learned Counsel of the appellant, since during the post mortem partially digested food was found in the stomach of victim and there was no decomposition, the chances of killing of the victim by the convict stand excluded, in our opinion is absolutely without any force. This fact clearly suggest that soon after she was found alive in the company of the convict Bappa Das she was killed and as Bappa Das could not offer any explanation as to how she died, this is another circumstance which would certainly go against him. This fact clearly suggest that soon after she was found alive in the company of the convict Bappa Das she was killed and as Bappa Das could not offer any explanation as to how she died, this is another circumstance which would certainly go against him. In view of the findings as above, we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has been able to establish its case against the convict Bappa Das beyond all reasonable doubt, accordingly his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing the victim Ria is fully justified and deserves no interference. In the result, we find the accused Bappa Das is alone guilty for causing death of Ria Das and his conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is converted to one under Section 302 IPC simpliciter. Now, coming to the question of sentence it is no doubt true that the incident is quite gruesome and heart-throbbing. A little child of only seven years was killed by her own cousin. Still in the given facts and circumstances of the case in which she was killed, in our opinion that does not make out any case coming within the category of the rarest of rare cases and therefore the capital punishment be substituted by the imprisonment for life. As we find the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan @ Bubai beyond all reasonable doubt, his conviction is set aside and is acquitted. It is directed that if the convict Biswajit Sadhukhan @ Bubai is not wanted in any other case he shall at once be released from the jail. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Learned Court below and to send down the Lower Court Records forthwith. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. I agree.