JUDGMENT RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant challenges his conviction by the Sessions Judge, Panchkula, under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 13.06.2005 and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months, vide order dated 15.06.2005. The facts, in brief, are that on 03.04.2003, Fateh Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station Raipur Rani, received a disclosure statement (Ex.PU), through constable Abhey Ram, from Ranjit Singh, Inspector CIA, Yamuna Nagar, wherein the appellant Waryam Singh had made a disclosure about various crimes one amongst them being the murder of one Sukhpal Singh. The disclosure statement, records Waryam Singh as stating that he and his brother Avtar Singh alias Tari were released from jail on 26.11.2002. While in jail, they befriended Sukhpal Singh alias Kola. Sukhpal Singh escaped from jail and began living with them. About two and half or three months ago, his brother Avtar Singh and Sukhpal obtained a double barrel gun along with cartridges from Pohla Singh, Sarpanch of Village Sir Kapra. Avtar Singh got the barrel shortened and also bought a country made pistol, as they planned to commit robberies. One day, while their sister was serving meals, he saw Sukhpal Singh, pressing her hand. He discussed this fact with his brother Avtar Singh and they decided to take revenge. Four or five days later, they took Sukhpal Singh to the area of village Toda, on the pretext of committing a crime. Waryam Singh was armed with a gun whereas Avtar Singh was armed with a pistol. Waryam Singh shot Sukhpal dead at about 9.00 p.m. and they buried his body on the bank of the river, after digging a ditch. Waryam Singh stated that he can get the dead body recovered. On receipt of the disclosure statement, SI Fateh Singh, recorded FIR(Ex.PU/1), on 03.04.2003 at 7.30 p.m., made an endorsement (Ex.PU/2), and forwarded the report to the Illaqa Magistrate, which reached at 6.13 a.m., on 04.04.2003. SI Fateh Singh filed, Ex.PV, an application, dated 04.04.2003, before the Illaqa Magistrate for transit remand of Waryam Singh, which was allowed on the same day, vide order Ex.PV/1. Waryam Singh was brought to police station, Raipur Rani and interrogated, in the presence of SI Vinod Kumar and Bahadur Singh. SI Fateh Singh filed, Ex.PV, an application, dated 04.04.2003, before the Illaqa Magistrate for transit remand of Waryam Singh, which was allowed on the same day, vide order Ex.PV/1. Waryam Singh was brought to police station, Raipur Rani and interrogated, in the presence of SI Vinod Kumar and Bahadur Singh. Waryam Singh made a disclosure statement, Ex.PA, reiterating contents of his disclosure statement, Ex.PU, regarding the murder of Sukhpal Singh and burial of the dead body. SI Fateh Singh filed an application, Ex.PH before the SDM, Panchkula, to depute an officer to join in effecting recovery of the dead body. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Executive Magistrate, was deputed to accompany the police party. An application, Ex.PW was moved before the SMO, General Hospital, Panchkula, to depute a team of doctors to accompany the police party. The SMO, General Hospital, Panchkula, deputed Dr. Saini, to accompany the police party. A photographer, from Barwala, was also asked to accompany the police. Waryam Singh led the police party to the place where he had buried the dead body of Sukhpal Singh and demarcated the exact spot. The area was excavated with the help of two labourers. A dead body was exhumed from the spot pointed out by Waryam Singh and identified as Sukhpal Singh by his father Bahadur Singh and Ram Asra, an uncle of the deceased. The dead body was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PB, which was attested by Bahadur Singh and Ram Asra. A kada, Ex.P5, shoes, Ex.P1 and P2, socks, Ex.P3 and P4, were taken into possession, vide recovery memo, Ex.PC, duly attested by Bahadur Singh, Ram Asra and the Executive Magistrate. A rough site plan, Ex.PX was also prepared, whereafter inquest proceedings, Ex.PJ were carried out. The photographer Vikas took photographs. The dead body was entrusted to ASI Manjeet Singh for getting post mortem examination conducted. Waryam Singh was once again interrogated on 06.04.2003, in the presence of Head Constable Om Parkash and Constable Krishan Kumar, he made another disclosure statement, Ex.PE, that he and his brother had removed the pant of deceased Sukhpal Singh and thrown it over a tree and had also thrown empty cartridges in the river, which they could get recovered. The disclosure statement was signed by Waryam Singh and attested by the aforesaid person. On 07.04.2003, Waryam Singh, pursuant to the disclosure statement, got the pant recovered, vide recovery memo Ex.PE/1. The disclosure statement was signed by Waryam Singh and attested by the aforesaid person. On 07.04.2003, Waryam Singh, pursuant to the disclosure statement, got the pant recovered, vide recovery memo Ex.PE/1. A site plan, Ex.PY, of the place of recovery was prepared by SI Fateh Singh, who thereafter, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deposited the case property with the mohrar head constable. ASI Manjeet Singh filed an application, Ex.PK to SMO, General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula, for post mortem examination. The dead body was referred to PGI, Rohtak, for post mortem, which was carried out on 07.04.2003, whereafter the dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased, vide receipt Ex.PM. The post mortem report is Ex.PL. The viscera of the deceased was handed over to MHC, Police Station, Raipur Rani and a copy of the post mortem report was handed over to SI Fateh Singh. Hari Om Patwari, prepared a scaled site plan and handed it over to SI Fateh Singh, on 23.05.2003. On 26.05.2003, a gun recovered from Waryam Singh in another FIR was taken into possession from MHC, Police Station Chhachhrauli, vide memo Ex.PF, and handed over to the armourer for examination, on 28.05.2003. The armourer prepared report, Ex.PG, on the same day. Avtar Singh was arrested on 17.08.2003, in another case FIR No.173 of 2003, registered under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and was interrogated by SI Karan Singh, in the presence of Head Consable Ramesh Kumar and UGC Suresh. Avtar Singh made a disclosure statement, Ex.PN, that he along with his brother Waryam Singh, had after committing the murder of Sukhpal Singh, buried his dead body. Avtar Singh led the police party to the place of concealment and crime. A demarcation memo, Ex.PS was prepared and attested by witnesses. A rough site plan, Ex.PQ was also prepared. Avtar Singh was again interrogated by SI Karan Singh and made another disclosure statement, Ex.PR that he had concealed a "Kassi" with which they had dug earth and buried the dead body of Sukhpal. The "Kassi" was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, vide recovery memo, Ex.PO. Upon completion of investigation, the police prepared and filed a final report. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The "Kassi" was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, vide recovery memo, Ex.PO. Upon completion of investigation, the police prepared and filed a final report. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Both, the appellant and Avtar Singh were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but as they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses:- PW1-Bahadur Singh, is father of the deceased and is attesting witnesses of disclosure statement Ex.PA, recovery memos, Ex.PB and Ex.PC, relating to recovery of dead body, clothes etc. Bahadur Singh has deposed that Waryam Singh led the police party to a place in village Toda, near river Dangri, which after digging revealed the dead body of his son Sukhpal Singh. He identified the dead body from a copper kada, sky blue shoes and cheque shirt. He also deposed that after mud was cleared from the face he could identify the dead body as his son, Sukhpal Singh. PW2-Hari Om Patwari, proved the scaled site plan, Ex.PD, relating to the place where Sukhpal Singh was shot and the spot where the dead body was recovered. PW3-HC Om Parkash, is attesting witness of the disclosure statement, Ex.PE, recovery memo Ex.PE/1 and recovery memo of gun Ex.PF. The gun was taken into possession from MHC, Police Station Chachrauli along with 19 live cartridges. PW3 also witnessed recovery of a trouser vide recovery memo, Ex.PE/1. PW4-Constable Om Parkash, is a formal witness, who hand over sealed parcels to the FSL. PW5-Vikas, proved photographs, Ex.DA to Ex.DD, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 and negatives Ex.P10 to Ex.P16. He, however, did not support the prosecution case, was declared hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor. PW6-HC Om Parkash, was MHC at the relevant time has deposed about entrustment of case property. PW7-HC Parkash Chand is the armourer, who proved his report Ex.PG. PW8-HC Dharam Pal, is attesting witness of recovery memo, Ex.PF of the gun and 19 cartridges. PW9-Ashwani Kumar, is the Tehsildar, in whose presence the dead body was excavated. PW10-ASI Manjeet Singh, got post mortem of the dead body, of Sukhpal Singh, conducted from PGI, Rohtak and proved post mortem report, Ex.PL and receipt, Ex.PM. PW11-SI Karan Singh, is the Investigating Officer. PW12-HC Ramesh Kumar, is the attesting witness of the disclosures and recoveries from accused Avtar Singh. PW10-ASI Manjeet Singh, got post mortem of the dead body, of Sukhpal Singh, conducted from PGI, Rohtak and proved post mortem report, Ex.PL and receipt, Ex.PM. PW11-SI Karan Singh, is the Investigating Officer. PW12-HC Ramesh Kumar, is the attesting witness of the disclosures and recoveries from accused Avtar Singh. PW13-Fateh Singh, is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution gave up certain witnesses and tendered into evidence reports Ex.PAA and PBB, report prepared by the FSL. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by order, on 21.04.2005. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case were put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Waryam Singh pleaded his innocence and denied having made any disclosure statements or having demarcated the place of recovery of any dead body or any other articles etc. Waryam Singh stated that the police had obtained his signatures after using third degree methods and the confession, demarcation of the spot and recoveries are false and concocted. He further stated that he had no knowledge of the recovered dead body and that it was planted on him and his brother in a pre planned manner. He did not know Sukhpal Singh, who was a proclaimed offender and was wanted in many cases. He denied that Sukhpal Singh ever resided, at their house. Avtar Singh also pleaded innocence, denied the disclosure statements, the recoveries, the demarcation of the spot and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated with his brother Waryam Singh. The trial court proceeded to hear arguments and after appraisal of the evidence on record and consideration of arguments addressed, convicted Waryam Singh but acquitted Avtar Singh by granting him the benefit of doubt. Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not been able to produce any credible much less convincing evidence about culpability of the appellant. The entire case as set up by the prosecution is based upon three disclosure statements recorded before the police and are, therefore, liable to be ruled out of consideration. The prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the dead body. The dead body was in an advance stage of putrefaction and, therefore, could not be identified by any person much less by PW1 Bahadur Singh, father of Sukhpal Singh or by Ram Asra, a relative of Sukhpal Singh. Ram Asra has even otherwise not been examined by the prosecution. The dead body was in an advance stage of putrefaction and, therefore, could not be identified by any person much less by PW1 Bahadur Singh, father of Sukhpal Singh or by Ram Asra, a relative of Sukhpal Singh. Ram Asra has even otherwise not been examined by the prosecution. A perusal of the photographs of the dead body and the post mortem report clearly reveal that it is impossible to identify the body. The inquest report, Ex.PJ, recorded apparently at the time of recovery of the dead body, records that the dead body was identified by Ram Asra and Hakam Singh, who have not been examined by the police. Ram Asra and Hakam Singh, also identified the dead body at the time of post mortem. In the absence of any positive identification by any witness, much less by a DNA test, the dead body cannot be said to be that of Sukhpal Singh. The prosecution has not proved injuries that led to the death of Sukhpal Singh. The recovery memo Ex.PB does not mention recovery of a 'Kara". The statement of Bahadur Singh recorded under Section 161 does not state that the word “kola”, the alleged nick name of the deceased, is inscribed on the “kara”. The state of the dead body i.e., in an advance stage of putrefaction, the absence of any positive identification by any witness, the failure to prove the cause of death is not sufficient to prove that the appellant murdered Sukhpal Singh and thereafter, buried his body. It is further submitted that the second disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of trouser, allegedly belonging to the deceased is not believable. The prosecution has failed to prove the role of the appellant in the death of Sukhpal Singh as the only evidence on record is the alleged disclosure statement, which is even otherwise inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution has not proved the weapon used in the offence or the post mortem report. The appellant should, therefore, be acquitted as has been ordered in the case of his brother and co-accused. The prosecution has not proved the weapon used in the offence or the post mortem report. The appellant should, therefore, be acquitted as has been ordered in the case of his brother and co-accused. Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that though it is true that there is no direct evidence but as the dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant pursuant to a disclosure statement and after the appellant pointed out the place where he has buried the dead body, the prosecution case has been proved in its entirety. The dead body has been duly identified by the father of Sukhpal Singh from its clothes, the kara and other items that were recovered by the police. In case, the appellant was innocent, he could not have possibly led the police to the place where the dead body was buried. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the entire evidence on record. The case, as set up by the prosecution, rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence and is, therefore, required to prove by adducing credible evidence that would rule out the possibility of any other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution story is based upon three disclosure statements that led to recovery of a dead body, at the behest and pointing out of the appellant, identification of the dead body as Sukhpal Singh, by his father from its shirt, shoes, a “kara” and its face and also recovery of a double barrel gun alleged to have been used to murder the deceased. As his first argument, counsel for the appellant has contended that the disclosure statements made while in police custody have to be ruled out of consideration as the appellant was coerced into making this statement. The argument, in our considered opinion, is fallacious to say the least. A confession made before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence but as postulated by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a confession leads to the discovery of a relevant fact, such a fact is admissible in evidence. The police were not aware that Sukhpal Singh had been murdered, much less by the appellant or after murdering Sukhpal Singh his dead body had been buried at a particular place. The police were not even aware that Sukhpal Singh, who had escaped from jail, is dead. The police were not aware that Sukhpal Singh had been murdered, much less by the appellant or after murdering Sukhpal Singh his dead body had been buried at a particular place. The police were not even aware that Sukhpal Singh, who had escaped from jail, is dead. It was only after the appellant made a disclosure statement, Ex.PU, in another case, before CIA Staff, Yamuna Nagar, the statement was forwarded, did the police at Police Station Raipur Rani received information about the murder of Sukhpal Singh. After receipt of Ex.PU, PW13-Fateh Singh, SI recorded an FIR sought and obtained the transit remand of Waryam Singh and upon interrogation, Waryam Singh made a fresh disclosure statement, Ex.PA, admitting that Sukhpal Singh was residing with them, after escaping from Jail. Sukhpal Singh misbehaved with their sister. Waryam Singh and Avtar Singh took him to a spot near Dangri river in village Toda, shoot him and buried his body, which he could get recovered. The disclosure statement Ex.PA, is signed by Waryam Singh, and attested by PW1 Bahadur Singh, father of the deceased and Ram Asra, an uncle of the deceased. The Investigating Officer, obtained permission to associate Dr. Saini, from General Hospital, Panchkula, Ashwani Kumar, Executive Magistrate and after taking a photographer constituted a search party. Waryam Singh, led the police party to the place where he had murdered Sukhpal Singh and buried his dead body. The place of burial was pointed out by Waryam Singh and upon excavation revealed a dead body, a shirt, shoes on the dead body and a bronze “kara”, which were all taken into possession by recovery memos. The body was identified by PW1 Bahadur Singh and Ram Asra, as the dead body of Sukhpal Singh from the shoes, shirt, “kara” and after the mud removed from its facial features. The disclosure statement suffered by Waryam Singh, duly signed by him, cannot be discarded as it led to discovery of relevant facts, namely, the site of murder and burial, recovery of a dead body, a shirt, shoes and a kara. The disclosure statements Ex. PU and Ex. PA are, therefore, relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The deposition by the Executive Magistrate, who accompanied the police team goes a long way in proving that the dead body were recovered at the behest of Waryam Singh. The disclosure statements Ex. PU and Ex. PA are, therefore, relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The deposition by the Executive Magistrate, who accompanied the police team goes a long way in proving that the dead body were recovered at the behest of Waryam Singh. The appellant having pointed out the place where he burried the dead body, it was for the appellant to prove whether he himself had concealed the dead body or saw someone concealing the dead body or someone told him about the person, who had concealed it. A presumption, therefore, arises that the concealment was made by the appellant. An inference to that effect is not inconsistent with the principles of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. A reference in this regard may be made to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal), 149, also relied by the trial court. We are satisfied that as disclosure statements made by the appellant led to discovery of vital and relevant facts they are admissible in evidence and can and have to be read against the appellant. Counsel for the appellant has also urged that mere recovery of the dead body is irrelevant as the prosecution has failed to make a positive identification of the dead body. A due consideration of this argument and perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the disclosure statements Ex.PU and Ex.PA recount the murder of Sukhpal Singh and burial of the dead body by the appellant, at a spot known only to the appellant. The dead body was recovered from the exact spot pointed out by the appellant and was identified as the dead body of Sukhpal Singh by his father Bahadur Singh from a copper 'kara' which bears the word “kola” a nick name of the deceased, recovered along with the dead body. Bahadur Singh also identified the shirt and shoes, recovered from the dead body and deposed that a cheque shirt and sky blue shoes were given by him to the deceased when he was in jail. Bahadur Singh has also deposed that he could identify the dead body as his son, after mud was removed from the face. The dead body has been identified not from its physical features but also from a 'kara', shoes and shirt'. Bahadur Singh has also deposed that he could identify the dead body as his son, after mud was removed from the face. The dead body has been identified not from its physical features but also from a 'kara', shoes and shirt'. The 'kara' bears a distinctive engraving of the word 'kola', a nick name of the deceased. An argument that recovery of the 'kara' is not recorded in the inquest report is an error by the Investigating Officer as its recovery is recorded in the recovery memo Ex.PC, which clearly records that a bracelet with the word “kola” inscribed has been recovered. Another related argument that in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. Bahadur Singh has not stated that the kara bears the inscription “kola” is belied by its description in the recovery memo Ex.PC. The question of conducting a DNA test for positive identification would have been relevant if the prosecution was in any doubt about the identity of the dead body. Another argument that the inquest report prepared at the spot and the post mortem report do not name Bahadur Singh, as the person who identified the dead body, in our considered opinion, does not detract from the positive identification of the dead body made by Bahadur Singh, who was present. It would also be appropriate to point out that the dead body and other articles were recovered in the presence of PW9-Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Executive Magistrate, a gazetted officer, and an attesting witness, who is necessarily an independent witness. The deposition by Mr. Ashwani Kumar, puts paid to any pretense about the recovery of the dead body or that the appellant was coerced into identifying the spot or getting the dead body recovered. The police, as we have already held were not aware of the death of Sukhpal Singh or that his body had been buried and at which place. The appellant led the police party to the exact spot where he had buried the dead body and in the presence of witnesses, pointed out the spot which after excavation led to recovery of the dead body. The prosecution has also proved by the deposition of the armourer that the double barrel 12 bore gun recovered from Waryam Singh, in FIR No.56, dated 28.03.2002, registered, under Section 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Chhachhrauli, was capable of firing a gun shot. The prosecution has also proved by the deposition of the armourer that the double barrel 12 bore gun recovered from Waryam Singh, in FIR No.56, dated 28.03.2002, registered, under Section 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Chhachhrauli, was capable of firing a gun shot. The post mortem report, Ex.PL, proved by PW10 ASI Manjit Singh, records an opinion of the doctor that death is due to fire arm injuries. An argument that the post mortem report has not been proved by producing the doctor and the weapon was not sent for ballistic examination, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted. It is true that the prosecution has been callous in proving the post mortem report, but this alone does not entitle the appellant to any benefit. The 12 bore double barrel gun was examined by PW7 HC Parkash Chand, armourer, who tested the gun and found in working condition, vide report Ex.PG. A copy of post mortem report clearly reveals that death was by fire arm injuries and a large number of pellets were removed from the dead body. A report received from the FSL shows that pellets and wads form part of a .12 bore cartridges and at least four shots were fired at the deceased. Once we have accepted the legality of the disclosure statements and identification of the body by Bahadur Singh, all other facts, in our considered opinion, pale into insignificance. Even otherwise as no one other than Waryam Singh was aware of the death of Sukhpal Singh, an escaped person and it was only pursuant to a disclosure statement made by Waryam Singh, before the CIA staff, Yamuna Nagar, that the death of Sukhpal Singh came to light setting into motion, the disclosure statements, the leading of the police, accompanied by the Executive Magistrate etc., to the place where Sukhpal Singh had been shoot and the spot where his dead body had been buried, there is no ream to doubt the truth of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution case based upon disclosure statements suffered by Waryam Singh, the pointing out of the place of occurrence by Waryam Singh, the discovery of the dead body at the instance of Waryam Singh, the identification of the dead body by Bahadur Singh, the post mortem report, recovery of the gun, recovery of shirt, shoes and “kara” identified as belonging to the deceased, in our considered opinion, completes the chain of circumstances required to rule out any hypothesis, consistent with the innocence of the appellant. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same accordingly.