JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This criminal appeal, under Section 374 of the code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment & order of conviction and sentence, dated 3.12.2003 and 4.12.2003 respectively, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Sessions Trial No. 28(WT/A)/2002. Learned Sessions Judge found the convict-appellant guilty of committing offences, punishable under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default of payment to suffer RI for 2(two) months under Section 302 of I.P.C. Again to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default to suffer RI for 2(two) months under Section 364A of I.P.C. Further, to suffer imprisonment for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 (one) month under Section 201 of I.P.C. Facts of the case may be summarized thus:- 1.1. Narendra Ghosh, aged about 47 years, a resident of village Karaiyamura (Bagma), PS. R K Pur, District - South Tripura by profession a milkman, in ordinary course of his profession went out, on 24.12.1999, in the morning to collect milk from Guliraibari at village, Ujan Pathalia under Takarjala PS. 1.2. In course of his daily life he used to collect milk from the villagers of that area, on purchase, and would sell it at Udaipur town. On that day, he did not return home and therefore, his wife and relatives searched for him but could not trace him out. On the following day, the informant, Amrita Lal Ghosh (P W. 1) got information from another Samir Ghosh, a milkman, that Narendra Ghosh was kidnapped by the NLFT extremists on 24.12.1999 at about 11.00 hours from a place near the house of Mohammad Ali (PW. 9). Putul Rani Ghosh (PW. 2), wife of Narendra, on receipt of that information went to Guliraibari, Ujan Pathalia to search her husband and at that time, the accused Falguna Debbarma and Jagadish Debbarma handed over her a letter and asked her to pay a ransom of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for the release of her husband. She expressed her helplessness, as a very poor fellow and after bargain, the accused persons come down to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for the release of her husband. She expressed her helplessness, as a very poor fellow and after bargain, the accused persons come down to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) and asked Putul Rani to arrange the amount immediately for release of her husband. She went back home, managed Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) and on 30.12.1999 went to the spot and handed over the amount to Falguna Debbarma and Jagadish Debbarma. They demanded the rest Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and cautioned that otherwise her husband will not; be released from their captivity. She returned home and on 02.01.2000, she again went to the spot with Rs. 5,000/- and at that time, one Ram Manik Debbarma told her that she would not make further payment and that she should immediately return to her house. Thereafter, she returned and after a few days she received information that her husband has been murdered by the kidnappers and the dead body has been buried somewhere in an abandoned house of one Hakim Ali at Guliraibari. 1.3. On 19.01.2000, Amrita Lal Ghosh lodged F.I.R narrating the fact with the Officer-in-Charge, Takarjala RS and accordingly, Takarjala P.S Case No. 01/2000 was registered under Section 364-A, 302, 201 and 109 of I.P.C. against the accused Falguna alias Falguni Debbarma, Jagadish Debbarma and some unknown others. SI Rangadulal Debbarma was entrusted with the charge of investigation. 1.4. In course of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence at Ujan Pathalia, prepared hand-sketch-map and examined material witnesses and also recorded their statement. On 23.01.2001, I.O. got information from the Officer-in-charge, Bisramganj P.S that the accused appellant Falguna Debbarma had been arrested and detained in the police custody of Bisramganj P.S and that the accused made a statement that Narendra Ghosh after being abducted by them had been murdered and that the dead body had been buried somewhere at Indrakumar Para under village Ujan Pathalia. He had further disclosed that he will be able to show the place where the dead body of Narendra Ghosh was buried. The information was given to the informant (PW. 1) and the informant along with other villagers went to Bisramganj P.S where O.C., Takarjala P.S. i.e. I.O. of the case, Addl. S.D.O., Bishalgarh (Executive Magistrate) and other people gathered. He had further disclosed that he will be able to show the place where the dead body of Narendra Ghosh was buried. The information was given to the informant (PW. 1) and the informant along with other villagers went to Bisramganj P.S where O.C., Takarjala P.S. i.e. I.O. of the case, Addl. S.D.O., Bishalgarh (Executive Magistrate) and other people gathered. The accused was interrogated and he made the same statement that Narendra Ghosh was murdered by them and he will show the spot where the dead body was kept buried. The accused led them to village -- Ujan Pathalia, Indrakumar Para and had shown them the spot where the dead body was buried. It was a dark place at the slope of a tilla land inside the Jungle. The people gathered there dug the spot with a spade, on identification by the accused and after digging a few cubits, a human skeleton was found and it was taken out. On seeing wearing pieces of lungi and vests found with the skeleton of a man, the informant (PW. 1) identified that it was the skeleton of his uncle Narendra Ghosh. The Police Officer (I.O.) prepared an inquest report over the skeleton body in presence of the accused-appellant, the Executive Magistrate and other witnesses and forwarded the skeleton body to Bisramganj hospital for P.M. examination wherefrom it was sent to I.G.M hospital, Agartala in the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, and there, in the morgue, P.W. 7 (Dr. Mridul Das) conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead body and the report was submitted which is proved as Exbt. 5. 1.5. I.O. also examined material witness, who had seen the accused appellant, along with others, abducting the deceased from the road near the house of PW. 9. On completion of investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant and others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364, 364-A, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 1.6. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and after completion of formalities the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 1.7. 1.6. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and after completion of formalities the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 1.7. Learned Sessions Judge, on 2.5.2003, framed charges against the accused-appellant, Falguna Debbarma alias Falguni for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 302, 201 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms act to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 1.8. In course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses namely: PW. 1, Shri Amrita Lal Ghosh PW. 2, Smti Putul Rani ghosh, PW. 3, Shri Chabir Ahmed, PW. 4, Shri Sudhir Ranjan Deb, PW. 5, Shri Kakhan Ghosh, PW. 6, Shri Anupam Ghosh, PW. 7, Dr. Mridul Das, PW. 8, Shri Dinesh Das, PW. 10, Smti Saher Banu, PW. 11, Shri Rangadula Debbarma. 1.9. Out of the witnesses, PW. 1 is the nephew of the deceased and is the informant of the case. PW. 2 is the wife of the deceased. PW. 3 is the Police Officer of Takarjala PS, who registered the case on receipt of the F.I.R. PW. 4 is an Executive Magistrate, who was present at the time of recovery of the skeleton body of the deceased. PWs. 5 and 6 are the local people who witnessed the discovery of skeleton body. PW. 7, is the Medical Officer, who conducted PM examination. PWs. 9 and 10 are the husband & wife respectively and PW. 9 is the eye-witness of the alleged abduction of the deceased. PW. 11 is the I.O. of the case. 1.10. Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and the accused declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but a bare denial of the prosecution case. Neither any defence case suggested during cross examination of the prosecution witness, nor the accused stated anything in course of his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. 1.11. Learned Sessions judge found the accused appellant guilty of committing offence and sentenced him accordingly, as aforesaid, hence this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta for the appellant, and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. D Sarkar, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R C Debnath for the State-respondents. 3. We have meticulously gone through the evidence and materials on record. Learned Sessions judge found the accused appellant guilty of committing offence and sentenced him accordingly, as aforesaid, hence this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta for the appellant, and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. D Sarkar, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R C Debnath for the State-respondents. 3. We have meticulously gone through the evidence and materials on record. Certain facts are found not disputed rather proved with overwhelming evidence, those are:- (i) Narendra Ghosh, aged about 47 years, a milkman by profession, in the usual course of his daily business went out, on 24.12.1999, in the morning to collect/purchase milk form Guliraibari (Village- Ujan Pathalia). (ii) He was abducted from the road near the house of PW. 9 at Ujan Pathalia by a group of NLFT extremists consisting of 5/6 persons. (iii) Narendra Ghosh was wearing a 'Lungi' and 'Ganji (vest)' and was having a 'Gamcha (a napkin)' when he went out from his house. The 'Lungi' was in green colour with check. (iv) The accused-appellant Falguna Debbarma was arrested by the Police of Bisramganj P.S and he made a statement that he will be able to show the spot where dead body of Narendra Ghosh was kept buried and he led the I.O. along with the Executive Magistrate and other witnesses to Indrakumar Para where he had shown a spot in the slope of a tilla land inside the jungle and the people/witnesses, who had gathered there, dug the spot and took out a skeleton, which was identified as the body of Narendra Ghosh by PW. 1 on seeing the piece of 'Lungi', which Narendra Ghosh was wearing at the time, when he went out from his house. 4. The circumstances of last seen together and leading to discovery of the dead body has been proved with unshaken overwhelming evidence on the basis of which the trial Court convicted the accused. PW. 9 in his deposition stated that about 4 years ago in the month of Falgoon (a Bengali calendar month), one day at about 11.00 AM while he was working in front of his house, he found Narendra Ghosh coming from northern direction. He also found Falguna Debbarma and Jagadish Debbarma taking away said Narendra Ghosh. The name of the road was Gulirai-Ananta-Para Road. He also found Falguna Debbarma and Jagadish Debbarma taking away said Narendra Ghosh. The name of the road was Gulirai-Ananta-Para Road. He requested the accused persons not to take Narendra Ghosh but they threatened him that: if he made further request he would be killed. He returned home and narrated the incident to his wife, Sairabanu (PW. 10) and also to one Samir Ghosh. That Samir Ghosh was a milkman. The abducted person was also a milk-man. Narendra Ghosh used to collect the milk from Ujan Pathalia area and sell it at market, which was his profession. He identified the accused Falguna Debbarma in the dock. Subsequently, he learnt that the skeleton body of Narendra Ghosh was recovered at the instance of accused Falguna Debbarma from Ujan Pathalia, Indrakumar Para. Except some suggestions there is nothing material in his cross-examination. The evidence of PW. 9 inspires all confidence and is not shaken in any manner. In cross-examination, there is nothing that the witness had animosity with the accused or had any other reasons to falsely implicate the accused. The sole evidence of PW. 9 is enough to hold that the accused-appellant along with others abducted Narendra Ghosh from the road in front of his house on the alleged date and time. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that after the alleged abduction, Narendra Ghosh was found alive by anybody else. The circumstances lead to the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused that the accused, along with his accomplices, murdered the deceased for ransom and the dead body was kept buried. 5. PWs. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and the I.O., i.e. PW. 11 are the witnesses leading to the recovery of the skeleton of deceased Narendra Ghosh. Let us, first, go through the Inquest Report (Ext. P. 2), which reads thus: In connection with the above mentioned case, I shri Rangadulal Debbarma, Sub-Inspector of Takarjala P.S on interrogating the police remand accused Shri Falguna Debbarma, S/O Lt. Mangal Singh Debbarma of Village Ujan Pathalia, P.S. Takarjala came to know that on 24.12.1999 A.D. last, after kidnapping Narendra Ghosh S/o Lt. Bipin Chandra Ghosh of Village karaiyamura P.S R.K Pur from Ujan Pathalia, killed (him) buried him under the mud in the transverse land of the tilla jungle of Pothur Debbarma of Indra Kumarpara. Mangal Singh Debbarma of Village Ujan Pathalia, P.S. Takarjala came to know that on 24.12.1999 A.D. last, after kidnapping Narendra Ghosh S/o Lt. Bipin Chandra Ghosh of Village karaiyamura P.S R.K Pur from Ujan Pathalia, killed (him) buried him under the mud in the transverse land of the tilla jungle of Pothur Debbarma of Indra Kumarpara. Today dated 24.01.2001 A.D., Wednesday, at 12.30 P.M. being present in the aforementioned place as per identification of the accused and in presence of witness noted in the margin and in presence and under the direction Executive Magistrate S.R. Deb, Addl. SDO Bishalgarh and after digging 2 x 31/2 cubits of the land identified by the witnesses and the labourer, a human skeleton was seen lying on its back with head pointing towards east. On perusing the green check lungi worn by the deceased the witnesses noted in the margin. Identified that the said human skeleton of deceased Narendra Ghosh and accused Shri Falguna Debbarma who was present there himself identified that the said human skeleton was of Narendra Ghosh whom Falguni Debbarma and his associates/accomplices had killed after kidnapping and had buried in the aforementioned place. The human skeleton of deceased Nartendra Ghosh measures about 3(three) cubits in length. Dried and decomposed flesh is seen to be sticking to the human skeleton. Black and grey hair measuring about 1 inch in length is seen on the back-side of the head of the deceased. 14 frontal teeth of the mouth are visible. The skeleton is found with a knot tied round the neck including the face with a decomposed and torn gamchha (napkin). Two hands are seen on either sides of the body up to the elbow. One green coloured check torn decomposed lungi is seen on the wearing of the skeleton. The two legs of the skeleton of the deceased are seen longitunally stretched. After the skeleton of the deceased is lifted from the hole with the help of accused Falguna Debbarma and Shri Anath Ghosh S/o. Lt. Surendra Kumar Ghosh of village Kariyamura P.S. R K Pur and the same to reversed and turned upside down it could be seen that the writs of the two hands of the skeleton of the deceased are tied backwards with and old decomposed gamcha (napkin). Surendra Kumar Ghosh of village Kariyamura P.S. R K Pur and the same to reversed and turned upside down it could be seen that the writs of the two hands of the skeleton of the deceased are tied backwards with and old decomposed gamcha (napkin). For ascertaining the actual cause of the death of the skeleton of the deceased the skeleton of the deceased is sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. Prepared by me in presence of Executive Magistrate, Bishalgarh and marginally noted witness Rangalal Debbarma S.I. of Police Camp Ujan Pathalia, Kumar Para Dt. 24.02.2001. Authenticity of the statements made in the inquest report has not been challenged. There is no cross-examination of the concerned witness to discredit the credibility of the report. It gives a vivid description of the statements made by the accused leading to the discovery of the skeleton-body of deceased Narendra Ghosh and identification of the same by PW 1 on seeing the wearing apparels (pieces of 'lungi' etc) of the deceased. PW. 4, the Executive Magistrate, made a very consistent statement about the leading to the recovery of the skeleton body of Narendra Ghosh. PWs. 1, 5 and 6 are also the material witnesses and their evidence has not been shaken in any manner. It is well proved that the accused led the witnesses to the spot, wherefrom the skeleton of the deceased was discovered. The body was naturally decomposed, because it was recovered only on 24.01.2001; whereas, the deceased was abducted on 24.12.1999 and killed sometime thereafter. 6. PW. 7, the autopsy surgeon, has stated that on 25.01.2001, he was posted at I.G.M hospital as Medical Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology and on that day, he conducted PM examination over the skeleton body of deceased Narendra Ghosh which was identified by his nephew Amrita Lal Ghosh (PW. 1) and the accompanying police constable, Dinesh Das (PW. 8). He stated that on examination of the skeleton Body he found that the body was devoid of soft tissue. On thorough examination he did not find any sign of injury except a cut fracture at cervical fore level which may be caused due to forceful cut throat. All bones were intact and some dried up soft tissue on the joints of bone. Some white hair found in the dried up portion of scalp. On thorough examination he did not find any sign of injury except a cut fracture at cervical fore level which may be caused due to forceful cut throat. All bones were intact and some dried up soft tissue on the joints of bone. Some white hair found in the dried up portion of scalp. In his opinion, no definite cause of death can be detected from the skeleton body. However, chance of the throat having been cut could not be overruled. He proved the PM report marked as Exbt. P/5. The 'cut throat' mentioned by him might be caused due to heavy sharp cutting weapon. In cross-examination, he stated that before he conducted the PM examination he was definite and satisfied that it was a human body skeleton. About the satisfaction he has not mentioned anything in the report. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Datta argued that the incident of alleged abduction occurred on 24.12.1999 at about 11.00 AM but the F.I.R was lodged on 19.01.2000. No evidence adduced explaining the delay. So, the prosecution case should be disbelieved. In support of his contention learned counsel referred a case of Jharkhand High Court (Matisan Bhumij Vs. State of Bihar) reported in 2010 G.L.J. 1177. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sarkar, on the other hand, has submitted that one may recollect the horrors of the days prevailing at that time when the innocent people were kidnapped/abducted by the armed extremist groups for ransom. It was very difficult at that point of time even to collect evidence against the miscreants who let loose a reign of terror in the interior areas of the state. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in almost every case the family members on payment of ransom would like to wait for return of the abducted person and the present case is also not an exception. In the facts and. circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the F.I.R is of no consequence since It was a case of abduction and they were waiting for return of the abducted person. PWs. 1 and 2 stated that on 24.12.1999, when the deceased did not return, they made missing information to the police. It was the duty of the I.O. to collect the record of the missing information in course of investigation. Unfortunately, I.O. did not do so. PWs. 1 and 2 stated that on 24.12.1999, when the deceased did not return, they made missing information to the police. It was the duty of the I.O. to collect the record of the missing information in course of investigation. Unfortunately, I.O. did not do so. Such defect or lapse, on the part of the I.O., cannot be considered fatal, where the case is, otherwise, proved with overwhelming evidence. In our considered opinion, delay in lodging the F.I.R, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was quite natural. There was nothing on record to show that for such delay, there was any embellishment or afterthought or that the accused was implicated falsely in the case. There was also no such plea, on behalf of the accused, taken at the time of cross-examination of the witnesses, that the F.I.R was lodged, subsequently, falsely naming him in the case. The facts of Mitsan Bhumij (supra) is different than that of the case at hand. It is the settled law that courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation of a given case fits with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the Courts are not to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor a provision of the statute. The observations must be read in the context in which they appear. We have no hesitation to hold that the observations, made in the reported case, has no manner of application to the fact situation of this case. In the case of Sahebrao & Anr. Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2002 : (2006) 9 SCC 794 , the Supreme Court has held: The settled principle of law is that delay in filing F.I.R by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging F.I.R could put the Court on its guard to search if a plausible explanation has been offered and if offered, whether it is satisfactory. The Apex Court, in the case of Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 has held: In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. The Apex Court, in the case of Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 has held: In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witness find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance of Police Station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice was available to them. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the observation of the Apex Court, in Sahebrao and Ramdas (supra), may be gainfully applied. Special circumstances, prevailing in this case, wherein a person, abducted by the armed miscreants for ransom, did not return even after payment of ransom and it was natural for the family members to wait for return of the person. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, police could take suomoto action and start investigation; but, unfortunately, police action remained waiting. There is nothing on record that before the case was registered, on 19.01.2000, based on the F.I.R lodged by PW. 1, police took any action in respect of the missing person. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of considered opinion that delay, in lodging FIR, in this case, should not be given undue importance and prosecution's case, which is, otherwise, proved cannot be thrown overboard. 8. Learned defence counsel, Mr. Datta, further argued that PWs. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of considered opinion that delay, in lodging FIR, in this case, should not be given undue importance and prosecution's case, which is, otherwise, proved cannot be thrown overboard. 8. Learned defence counsel, Mr. Datta, further argued that PWs. 1 and 2 stated about a letter received by PW. 2 from the accused and his companion demanding ransom, but that letter was not seized by I.O. It was, suddenly, produced before the Court at the time of examination of PW. 2 and marked as Exbt. P/3. PW. 2 stated that it was the letter written by her husband in his own hand and addressed to PW. 1 and that letter also contains a message by the NLFT extremist. Learned Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that the letter was not seized by I.O. during investigation. It was a serious lapse on the part of the I.O. He further submitted that might be the I.O. had no knowledge and idea about the investigation and might have committed mistake in omitting to seize the document and, for that reason alone, the prosecution's case cannot be thrown overboard, specially, when the demand of ransom by the accused appellant and his companion miscreants has been established with the oral evidence on record. Exbt. P/3, is a letter, written by deceased, Narendra Ghosh addressed to PW. 1, requesting to release him. from the custody of extremists. The letter was handed over to PW. 1. Evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 are specific regarding the letter. In the F.I.R also, PW. 1 mentioned about the receipt of such a letter from the deceased after his abduction. Admittedly, I.O. did not seize it. It was placed on record on the date of recording of evidence of PW. 2. Hence, it was brought as a matter of surprise to the defence. Therefore, Exbt. P/3 may not be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the case. We have no hesitation to observe that there are several apparent defects in the investigation of the case. According to the PW. 1, F.I.R was lodged on 17.01.2000. Exbt. P/3 shows the date 17.01.2000 at the bottom of signature of the PW. 1 in the F.I.R but PW. 3 registered the case on 19.01.2000. No explanation given by the police officer about delay in registration of the case. According to the PW. 1, F.I.R was lodged on 17.01.2000. Exbt. P/3 shows the date 17.01.2000 at the bottom of signature of the PW. 1 in the F.I.R but PW. 3 registered the case on 19.01.2000. No explanation given by the police officer about delay in registration of the case. The letter demanding ransom (Exbt. P/3) was in the custody of PW. 2. It was mentioned in the F.I.R but police did not seize it. It shows callousness of the investigating agency. The police officer, having no such knowledge, ought not to have been entrusted to investigate such a serious case. F.I.R also discloses the name of one Samir Ghosh, who got the information from PW. 9 and reported about abduction of Narendra Ghosh to the informant, but he was not examined. It is, therefore, evident that the investigation was designedly defective. The Supreme Court, in the case of Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP reported in 1995 CRI. L.J 4173 : (1995) 5 SCC 518 held, In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer, if the investigation is designedly defective. In Kamal Singh's case, the I.O. did not, in a case of rape, deliberately record the statements of the witnesses apart from some other apparent defects. The Court, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, relied on the evidence on record and recorded conviction of the accused. The ratio of that decision may be fairly applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta, is that the ingredient of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been proved. He submitted that the statement of the accused was not recorded by the I.O. and, therefore, the evidence of PWs. l, 4, 5 and 6 along with the evidence of I.O. (PW. 11) should be disbelieved. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court, reported in 2009 (2) GLT 141 : (2010) 1 GLR 277: Dhalai Ram Reang Vs. State of Tripura and 2011 (4) GLT 731 : 2011 CRI. L.J 4167: Udaimanik Jamatia Vs. State of Tripura. 11) should be disbelieved. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court, reported in 2009 (2) GLT 141 : (2010) 1 GLR 277: Dhalai Ram Reang Vs. State of Tripura and 2011 (4) GLT 731 : 2011 CRI. L.J 4167: Udaimanik Jamatia Vs. State of Tripura. Learned P.P., in reply, submitted that the accused made categorical statement regarding the fact that the dead body of the deceased was buried in the jungle at Indrakumar Para of village Ujan Pathalia and he led the Executive Magistrate, I.O. and the witnesses to the spot, wherefrom, as shown by him, the skeleton body was taken out in buried condition and the skeleton body was identified, on seeing the wearing apparels of the deceased, which the deceased was wearing at the time, when he was abducted. Learned PP drawing our attention to the inquest report has submitted that the contents of the Inquest report makes it clear that the accused did make a statement leading to the recovery of the skeleton body and, on the basis of his statement, the body was dug out from buried condition and, therefore, there is no room at all to disbelieve the prosecution's case. The object of Section 27 is to provide for the admission of evidence, which, but for the existence of Section 27, would not, in consequence of the preceding Sections, have been admitted in evidence. The basic idea, embedded in Section 27, is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in 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. Though the evidence, relating to the confession or other statements made by a person, while he is in custody of a police officer, is tainted and, therefore, inadmissible; but when the truth of the information, given by him, is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be treated as not tainted and is, therefore, declared probable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the discovery of skeleton body of the deceased, at the instance of the accused, has established that the said skeleton was found based on the information disclosed by the accused and he has shown the spot, wherefrom the body was taken out. In the case of Dhalai Ram Reang (supra), there was no eye-witness of kidnapping. Only at the instance of the accused, the dead-body was recovered. Considering the evidence on record this Court found it difficult to hold the appellant guilty based only on the evidence of recovery of the dead body. The case of Udaimanik (supra) also stands almost on a similar fact situation as the case of Dhalairam (supra); but in the case at hand, there is direct evidence of PW. 9 regarding abduction by the accused and others. At the instance of the accused, dead body was recovered, which is proved. Under such circumstances, ratio of the decisions, referred to by learned counsel for appellant, cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. The next argument, advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta, is that the skeleton body was not examined by any expert scientifically and, further, based on the statement of PW. 1, on identification of the pieces of 'lungi' itself, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abduction and murder. We have already reproduced above the evidence of PW. 7, which is enough to form an opinion that it was a human skeleton and there was a mark of cut on the throat of the skeleton. The skeleton was found with the piece of 'lungi' (Exbt. P.M.O. 1), which the deceased was wearing and the 'lungi' was seized by I.O. and produced before the Court and, on seeing the 'lungi', PW. 1 identified that it was his missing uncle who was abducted by the extremist (i.e. the accused appellant and others). PW. 2 also identified Exbt. P.M.O. 1 as the wearing apparal of her husband on the date of his missing. Therefore, we find no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta. Even in the absence of corpus delicti, it is possible to establish, in an appropriate case, the commission of murder. PW. 2 also identified Exbt. P.M.O. 1 as the wearing apparal of her husband on the date of his missing. Therefore, we find no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta. Even in the absence of corpus delicti, it is possible to establish, in an appropriate case, the commission of murder. There is no rule that unless the dead body, in full, is recovered, the charge cannot be held to be proved. The chain of circumstances, supported by the evidence on record, overwhelmingly establish that the accused appellant, along with others, abducted the deceased for ransom and, thereafter, they collected an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from PW. 2, but murdered the deceased and buried the dead body in the jungle, which was recovered after about year of the occurrence on 24.01.2001. 11. Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the sole evidence of PW. 9 cannot be accepted as sufficient to hold that deceased Narendra Ghosh was abducted by the accused along with others. He is supported only by his wife, PW. 10. Prosecution did not examine the other milkman, Samir Ghosh, whose name PW. 9 disclosed. Under the circumstances, the theory of last seen together cannot be safely applied to the present case. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the case laws, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2369 (Venkatesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and AIR 2008 SC 69 (Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka). Learned PP., on the other hand, has submitted that PW. 9 is an independent witness and made a consistent and natural statement. Nothing is brought out form his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW. 9 is sufficient to hold that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused and his companion. We have already reproduced above the statement of PW. 9 recorded by the learned trial Judge. There is no ambiguity in the statement. PW. 9 has no animosity with the accused so as to implicate him falsely. Not even a suggestion was offered to PW. 9 that for any extraneous reason., the witness had made statement against him. We find no room at all to doubt the evidence of PW. 9. There is no ambiguity in the statement. PW. 9 has no animosity with the accused so as to implicate him falsely. Not even a suggestion was offered to PW. 9 that for any extraneous reason., the witness had made statement against him. We find no room at all to doubt the evidence of PW. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Venkatesan (supra) and Malesappa (supra), cannot be applied since in both the said reported cases, the evidence of last seen together was found to be not convincing in view of several inconsistencies; whereas, in the case at hand, there is no evidence that deceased Narendra Ghosh was found alive after he was abducted by the accused person, on 24.12.1999, till his skeleton-body was recovered at the instance of the accused on 24.01.2001. The evidence of PW. 9, coupled with recovery of the dead body, at the instance of the accused, is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant and there is no scope at all to disbelieve the evidence of PW. 9 merely because he is the sole witness. It is settled law that the evidence is to be weighed and not counted. If the sole testimony of the sole witness inspires confidence, it is enough to convict the accused. What is required is the quality and not quantity. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Datta, has also argued that the prosecution case is full of inconsistencies and embellishments, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and thereby recorded a finding of conviction. The testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 are not corroborating each other and, hence, the whole case is liable to be disbelieved. Learned P.P., per contra, has submitted that the evidence of last seen together and leading to recovery of the dead body, at the instance of the accused, has been established with absolute certainty. So, the discrepancy or inconsistency here and there is of no consequence. We find no material inconsistency or discrepancy, in the evidence on record, in respect of abduction of the deceased by the accused along with his associates and recovery of the dead body at his instance. Under these circumstances of the case, the minor discrepancies here and there should not be attached undue importance. We find no material inconsistency or discrepancy, in the evidence on record, in respect of abduction of the deceased by the accused along with his associates and recovery of the dead body at his instance. Under these circumstances of the case, the minor discrepancies here and there should not be attached undue importance. Discrepancies here and inconsistencies there are inevitable in every criminal case. But the Court has to see whether such inconsistency or discrepancy has shaken the core of the prosecution case and shattered the basic version of the witnesses; otherwise, minor discrepancy or inconsistency should be ignored. We may quote here observations made Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 . The observations read thus: It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ration of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allowance or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of person, in/or close to powers and musclemen or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time. Thus, in a criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in any ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. 13. At the end, learned counsel, Mr. Datta, argued that the seizure of the piece of 'lungi' (Exbt. P.M.O. 1) by which PW. 2 identified the dead body was not referred to the accused at the time of his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the finding of conviction and sentence stand vitiated. On going through the memorandum of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., we find that question No. 7 was put to the deceased stating about the identity of the skeleton body of deceased, by PW. 1, Amritalal Ghosh, on seeing the 'lungi', which was found with the skeleton-body to which the accused simply denied and stated nothing more. So, this argument has no basis at all. 14. In view of the discussions made above, we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Send back the LC records along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed