JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. The accused appellant was charged for commission of murder as well as for causing disappearance of evidence of murder of his minor step-children (son and daughter, aged about nine years and six years respectively), under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, who on trial found him guilty of the charges and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one year under Section 302 of IPC and again to suffer RI for one year under Section 201 of IPC. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. R. Datta for the appellant and learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar for the State respondent. 2. Facts of the case may be noticed thus: 2.1 Accused appellant married Dil Sukhi Chakma as per their Tribal Chakma Customs. Dil Sukhi was, with her three children, begotten through her previous husband. Out of the three children, the eldest one was Saidya Kumar Chakma alias Sudhakar Chakma, aged about 8/9 years (son), the second one Jayapada Chakma (daughter) aged about 5/6 years and the third one a daughter on her lap. The second marriage of Dil Sukhi with accused, Anil Chakma occurred after the death of her first husband. The accused Anil and Dil Sukhi with her children were living in their hut at S.K. Para (Ratan Nagar), village Tuichakma The matrimonial relation between Anil and Dil Sukhi was not cordial and they used to quarrel often between them. On 07.11.1996, Dil Sukhi was severely beaten up by her husband and it was unbearable for her and she left the house with her youngest daughter on her lap, living Sudhakar and Jayapada in their hut. She took shelter in the house of 'Sardar' (village leader) of the village, namely Sadhan Chandra Chakma (PW. 2) and narrated the occurrence to him. She requested village Sardar (PW. 2) and other villagers to enquire about her minor children, left by her in the hut with accused Anil. The village Sardar along with other villagers went to S.K. Para in the house of accused Anil Chakma but found neither Anil nor the children of Dil Sukhi. Thereafter, they made a search in the neighbourhood but could neither trace out Anil nor the minor children of Dil Sukhi. The village Sardar along with other villagers went to S.K. Para in the house of accused Anil Chakma but found neither Anil nor the children of Dil Sukhi. Thereafter, they made a search in the neighbourhood but could neither trace out Anil nor the minor children of Dil Sukhi. The village Sardar, then, instructed other villagers to search for accused Anil Chakma and two minor children of Dil Sukhi. On 12.11.1996, the villagers found accused Anil in the jungle and picked him up, and thereafter, took him before the village Sardar in his house. On query by the village Sardar and other villagers, the accused Anil confessed that he killed the children of Dil Sukhi (Sudhakar and Jayapada) by throttling, and thereafter, buried their dead bodies by the side of Chintekcherra (a small stream) under the water at the foot of a 'tilla'. On repeated query by the villagers, he narrated the same fact. Thereafter, the village Sardar along with other villagers took him to Gandacherra P.S. and handed over him to the police officer. The village Sardar, Sadhan Chandra Chakma (PW. 2) lodged an FIR in writing with the O/C of Gandacherra P.S. and O/C Gandacherra P.S.(PW.9) accordingly received the same and forwarded it to the O/C Raishyabari P.S. for registration of the case, since the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Raishyabari P.S. Accordingly, O/C Raishyabari P.S., SI Nitosh Debbarma registered Raishyabari P.S. case No. 08 of 1996 under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and took up investigation. The accused in the presence of the police officers confessed that he committed murder of his step-children and buried their dead bodies at S.K. Para under the water by the side of Chintekcherra and that he will be able to show the spot where the dead bodies of the step-children were buried by him. On 13.11.1996, the accused led the police along with an Executive Magistrate (PW. 7) and other witnesses to the spot where the dead bodies of Sudhakar and Jayapada were buried and he identified the spot from where the bodies of those two children were recovered. On 13.11.1996, the accused led the police along with an Executive Magistrate (PW. 7) and other witnesses to the spot where the dead bodies of Sudhakar and Jayapada were buried and he identified the spot from where the bodies of those two children were recovered. SI Nitosh Debbarma, O/C of Raishyabari P.S. prepared inquest report over the dead bodies in presence of the witnesses and the Executive Magistrate, and thereafter, forwarded the bodies for postmortem examination I.O. also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and prepared hand sketch map of the place of occurrence, and thereafter, collected postmortem report of Sudhakar and Jayapada, and submitted charge sheet against accused Anil for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2.2 Learned SDJM, Amarpur has taken cognizance on the basis of the police report and in due course committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge for trial. 2.3 In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against accused Anil Chakma to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 In course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely PW. 1 Safik Majumder, PW.2 Sadhan Ch. Chakma, PW.3 Surababu Chakma, PW.4 Sarada Rn. Chakma, PW.5 Jayanti Bikash Chakma, PW.6 Sishu Ram Chakma, PW.7 Ranjit Debbarma, PW.8 Dr. Milan Kanti Saha and PW.9 Dilip Kr. Bhowmik. Out of them PW. 1 was a constable of police, attached with SDPO, Gandacherra, who accompanied the SDPO and other police party and witnessed recovery of the dead bodies from S.K. Para at the instance of the accused. PW.2 was the village Sardar of Tuichakma, a village of Chakma Community, and he lodged the FIR. The accused made an extrajudicial confession before him and other witnesses. PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6 were all co-villagers of the accused and residents of the locality and they all narrated about the search made for the accused and the children of Dil Sukhi and they were also the witnesses of the extra-judicial confessional statement and recovery of the dead bodies. PW.7 was the BDO of Gandacherra, an Executive Magistrate, and he was present at the time of recovery of the dead bodies at the instance of the accused. PW.8 was the Autopsy Surgeon. PW.7 was the BDO of Gandacherra, an Executive Magistrate, and he was present at the time of recovery of the dead bodies at the instance of the accused. PW.8 was the Autopsy Surgeon. PW.9 was the O/C of Gandacherra P.S. to whom the accused was handed over by the villagers and the FIR was lodged by PW.2. He also narrated about the investigation done by SI Nitosh Debbarma, O/C of Raishyabari P.S., who died in the meantime, before trial of the case was commenced. 2.5 After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He adduced no evidence. Defence case is nothing but a bare denial of the prosecution case. 3. We have meticulously gone through the evidence and materials on record. The trial Judge reproduced the depositions of witnesses in the judgment, and therefore, for brevity, we do not like to reproduce the evidence again. 4. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence i.e. the extrajudicial confession statement made by the accused in presence of PWs.2 to 6, all co-villagers of the accused and the recovery of the dead bodies at the instance of the accused. "A witness can tell a lie but circumstances never", is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. Circumstantial evidence means communication of facts, creating a network, from which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit any inference except the guilty of the accused. The circumstances from which the allegation is drawn should be fully proved. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Chauna Orang Vs. State of Assam reported in 1981 Cri. LJ 1661, while discussing the rules, governing admissibility; and use of circumstantial evidence, has held-(i) Facts for a legal inference must be clearly proved and indubitably connected with the factum probandum, (ii) burden is on party asserting existence of acts, (iii) best evidence to be adduced, (iv) inculpatory fact must be incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hyposhesis, (v) acquittal in case of reasonable doubt. In the present case, PWs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, all made clear, cogent and consistent statement that Dil Sukhi, being beaten up by the accused, took shelter in the house of PW. In the present case, PWs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, all made clear, cogent and consistent statement that Dil Sukhi, being beaten up by the accused, took shelter in the house of PW. 2, the village Sardar of Chakma Community of that locality and requested the Sardar and other villagers to enquire about her children, left by her in the hut with the custody of the accused. They all stated that the villagers went there but on search neither found the accused nor the children of Dil Sukhi. After 3/4 days, accused was found in the jungle and the villagers picked him up. Accused made disclosure of the offence to the villagers that he killed the step-children and buried them in the jungle by the side of Chintekcherra at S.K. Para. He was handed over to Gandacherra P.S. and was arrested. He made a statement to the police. He thereafter led the police party along with the Executive Magistrate (PW.7) to the spot and, on his identification, dead bodies of Sudhakar and Jayapada were recovered. The incriminating network of fact has established the guilt of the accused and nothing else. It is completely inconsistent with the plea of his innocence. 4.1 Learned counsel, Mr. Datta, while assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, has submitted that learned trial Judge just reproduced the depositions of the witnesses but failed to appreciate the same in its proper perspective. The chain of circumstances has not been proved by the prosecution, and therefore, accused must be given the benefit of doubt. 4.2 We, on meticulous examination of the evidence on record, find no supporting evidence to consider the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta. 4.3 It is an undisputed fact that Dil Sukhi, accused Anil and the witnesses, all are residents of are mote tribal village of Ratan Nagar, Tuichakma under Gandacherra Sub-Division. Dil Sukhi, an antiquated indigenous tribal woman, who after the death of her first husband with her three children, begotten through her first husband, married Anil Chakma, the accused, and started living with the accused with her children. It is also an undisputed fact that on 08.11.1996, Dil Sukhi took shelter in the house of village Sardar (PW. 2). It is, however, suggested on behalf of the accused at the time of cross-examination of PW. 2 that Dil Sukhi had illicit relation with PW. It is also an undisputed fact that on 08.11.1996, Dil Sukhi took shelter in the house of village Sardar (PW. 2). It is, however, suggested on behalf of the accused at the time of cross-examination of PW. 2 that Dil Sukhi had illicit relation with PW. 2, and therefore, she, after quarreling with her husband, went to the house of PW.2 with her youngest baby on her lap and the accused was therefore assaulted and detained in the house of PW.2. There is no scrap of evidence in support of the defence suggestion put to PW.2 at the time of cross-examination. Suggestion, denied, has no evidentiary value. The circumstances, that when Dil Sukhi left the house of the accused, her two children (Sudhakar and Jayapada) were in the hut with the accused. On the following morning when PW.2 and other villagers made a search, neither found the accused nor the children of Dil Sukhi in the hut of the accused or in the neighbourhood. The accused was detained by the villagers on 12.11.1996 and he confessed before the villagers that he had murdered the children and buried them under water by the side of Chintekcherra and at his instance, in presence of the Executive Magistrate and other senior police officers, dead bodies were recovered. Therefore, we find a consistent story without any break. Dil Sukhi is no longer since she has also been murdered. Her statement was recorded by I.O. but the prosecution took no attempt to prove it at the time of trial. 4.4 We, therefore, find no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel. 5.1 The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta is that I.O. of the case has not been examined since he died before commencement of trial. The prosecution has failed to prove that the confessional statement of the accused was recorded leading to discovery of the dead bodies. Under such circumstances, the trial court wrongly relied on the confessional statement and leading to discovery. 5.2 On the contrary, learned P.P. has submitted that the accused made a confessional statement before the villagers and when he was produced before the O/C Gandacherra P.S. (PW9), the accused made the same statement and then he was taken to custody. Under such circumstances, the trial court wrongly relied on the confessional statement and leading to discovery. 5.2 On the contrary, learned P.P. has submitted that the accused made a confessional statement before the villagers and when he was produced before the O/C Gandacherra P.S. (PW9), the accused made the same statement and then he was taken to custody. On the following day, the accused led the police officers including the I.O., O/C of Raishyabari P.S. and the Executive Magistrate to the spot and dead bodies were recovered. In the inquest reports, prepared over the dead bodies, it was clearly mentioned that based on the confessional statement of the accused and identification of the spot, dead bodies were recovered. So, there is no point at all for any suspicion in the evidence leading to discovery. Discovery of a fact based on the statement of a person, accused of an offence, while in police custody, is made admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The object of Section 27 is to provide for the admission of evidence which, but for the existence of the section, cannot in consequence of the preceding sections, be 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. Section 27 is by way of proviso to Sections 25 and 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the facts discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. In the case at hand, the accused with his stepchildren were found missing from the locality for the date his wife Dil Sukhi left his home being beaten by him. He was caught by the villagers on 12.11.1996 and he made a clear and voluntary disclosure of the offence of murder of his step-children and about burying of the dead bodies. He was handed over to police where also he made the same statement. Based on his statement and on his identification of the spot dead bodies were recovered. He was caught by the villagers on 12.11.1996 and he made a clear and voluntary disclosure of the offence of murder of his step-children and about burying of the dead bodies. He was handed over to police where also he made the same statement. Based on his statement and on his identification of the spot dead bodies were recovered. This is a most important piece of evidence and we found no room to disbelieve it 5.3 The submission of learned counsel, Mr. Datta does not appear to have any support of the evidence on record. Admittedly, I.O. of the case SI Nitosh Debbarma, O/C of Raishyabari P.S. died before commencement of trial. All the witnesses stated that the accused was handed over to the O/C Gandacherra P.S. i.e. PW. 9. FIR was lodged before him by PW.2. PW. 9 stated that he forwarded the FIR to O/C Raishyabari P.S., who on receipt of the same registered the case on 13.11.1996. There is no infirmity in the statements of the witnesses. PW. 9 has proved the materials collected by I.O. during investigation. He has not been even cross-examined by the defence, which reflects in order dated 10.05.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of PW.9 in respect of the material investigation done by I.O., has remained un-rebutted. 5.4 Under such circumstances of the case, argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta deserves no consideration. 6.1 Learned counsel, Mr. data next argued that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the dead bodies and the confessional statement, alleged to have made by the accused and so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. 6.2 We have meticulously examined the evidence on record but we find no such material discrepancy or inconsistency, which touches the root of the case. Minor discrepancies, which do not touch the root of the case and shake the basic version of the witnesses should not be attached with undue importance. 6.3 In the case of Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1981 CRI LJ 743 : 1981 Supp. SCC 311, the Apex Court has observed-It Is no doubt true that the prosecution evidence does not suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. 6.3 In the case of Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1981 CRI LJ 743 : 1981 Supp. SCC 311, the Apex Court has observed-It Is no doubt true that the prosecution evidence does not suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. 6.4 In our considered opinion, in the present case, disappearance of the accused with his step-children and subsequent disclosure of the offence, after he was captured by the villagers, to the witnesses and recovery of the dead bodies at his instance, are so consistent and cogent that no doubt can be thrown on the basic version of the material witnesses and the deficiency, to which learned defence counsel tried to draw our attention, is of no consequence at all. 7.1 Learned counsel Mr. Datta further argued that Dil Sukhi Chakma married the accused with three children and it is in the evidence on record that she left the house after a dispute or a quarrel with the accused. So, the circumstances suggest that she might kill her children, and thereafter, blamed her husband. Learned P.P., on the contrary, has submitted that there is no evidence in support of the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta and so such argument should be ignored. 7.2 We have considered the submission. It is in the evidence on record that Dil Sukhi was beaten up by the accused and she left the house with her youngest daughter on her lap and took shelter in the house of the local Sardar i.e. PW.2. There is no evidence that her two children Sudhakar and Jayapada accompanied her, rather her statement to the witnesses was that the children were left in her house with the accused. In the absence of any evidence on record, such an argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta may be termed as a wild argument, having no basis at all. Dil Sukhi was all along in the house of PW.2 after she left her husband's house. In the absence of any evidence on record, such an argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Datta may be termed as a wild argument, having no basis at all. Dil Sukhi was all along in the house of PW.2 after she left her husband's house. There was no scope or reason for her to get her children and to murder them. At least, we find no reason at all for her in doing so while the circumstances suggest that the accused, with a view to take revenge on his wife, killed her children when she left his house. This presumption may be drawn based on the evidence on record. We find no merit in the argument 8.1 Learned counsel, Mr. Datta, at the end, argued that the accused has also been held guilty for the murder of his wife Dil Sukhi, which occurred on 15.07.1997. Since both the offences alleged to have committed by the accused within one year, so he may be punished once for both the offences. 8.2 Learned P.P. has submitted that the offences committed, by the accused are distinct, having different date, time and place and person against whom the offences committed. The accused does not deserve any lenient consideration since he has desperately and brutally committed murder of his wife and the step-children. There is no law that simply because of the offence committed within the span of one year, the accused should be punished for both the offences only once. 8.3 We have heard this criminal appeal and Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2008, at the same time, one after another. The other appeal was filed by the appellant Anil Chakma in which he was held guilty of murdering his wife Dil Sukhi Chakma. Records of both the cases, as referred by learned counsel of both side, have been examined. It shows that the date, time and place of occurrence are different. The accused was allowed to go on bail by order dated 19.05.1997 by learned SDJM in connection with this case and he furnished bail bond on 25.06.1997. While he was on bail he committed the murder of his wife Dil Sukhi on 15.07.1997 at S.K. Para in the jhum field of his wife and her mother. Both the offences are distinct, committed by the accused at different point of time and not in one transaction. While he was on bail he committed the murder of his wife Dil Sukhi on 15.07.1997 at S.K. Para in the jhum field of his wife and her mother. Both the offences are distinct, committed by the accused at different point of time and not in one transaction. So, there is no question of having one punishment for the offences committed by him at different point of time. This argument, therefore, does not deserve any consideration. 9. Based on the discussions made above, we find no merit in the appeal, and the appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 10. On perusal of the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge we find that the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused under Section 302 of IPC to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for one year and directed the sentences to run concurrently. The sentence for non-payment of fine cannot run concurrently with the principal sentence of life. The sentence for non-payment of fine shall be different to that of the principal sentence. Subject to the above observation, order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge is upheld. 11. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. records along a copy of the judgment. Appeal dismissed