JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common Judgment and order dated 25.04.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 51/2009 U/s.365/302/201/34 IPC. Therefore, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. Under the aforesaid judgment, Smti. Anita Mali and Md. Sweet Hussain, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 141 and 151 of 2013 respectively stood convicted of offences U/s. 364/302/201/34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for another 1 (one) year for the offences U/s. 364/302/34 IPC, R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for another 6 (six) months for the offences U/s. 201/34 IPC. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons) have preferred those appeals challenging the judgment in question on the grounds more than one. 3. We have heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 141/2013 and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 151/2013. Also heard Mr. M. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 4. The facts, projected by the prosecution in the F.I.R. and in subsequent trial, in short, are that one Monoj Sutradhar (since deceased) married accused Anita Mali and started to live with her as husband and wife. Out of their wed lock, a daughter was born to them. However, the marriage ran into rough weather for which his wife started to live separately from her husband in a rented house at Jagiroad in Morigaon district in the State of Assam. 5. On 08.11.2008, her husband Monoj Sutradhar went to the rented house of Anita at Jagiroad to bring his wife back to his house. After the victim had reached the rented house of his wife Anita at Jagiroad, he got involved in a quarrel with her for which she rang up one Sri Dharani Sutradhar (P.W. 1), father of the victim and told him that her husband had been quarrelling with her causing huge disturbance to her. 6. On receipt of the telephonic call from accused Anita Mali, P.W. 1 informed his son over phone to return home immediately. 6. On receipt of the telephonic call from accused Anita Mali, P.W. 1 informed his son over phone to return home immediately. Sometime thereafter, P.W. 1 again rang up his son but he found the Mobile Phone of his son in a switched off mode. Though, P.W. 1 tried to contact his son over phone but he could not do so since he found the phone of his son in switched off mode all the time. 7. Since then P.W. 1 did not have any information about his son. Therefore, on 12.11.2008, the father of the deceased informed the Officer-in-charge, Jagiroad Police Station that his son had gone missing w.e.f. 8th of November, 2008. Since he did not get any information about his son, he lodged an F.I.R. with Officer-in-charge, Jagiroad Police Station on 25.11.2008 alleging that accused persons might have kidnapped his son or they might have killed him by that time and concealed his body somewhere. 8. On the basis of such an F.I.R., a case was registered vide Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 215/08 U/s. 365/201/34 IPC, and one Sri Netra Kamal Saikia (I.O.) was ordered to investigate the case. Being so ordered, Sri Saikia took up the investigation of the case. In course of investigation, he came to the place where dead body was found on 21.11.2008. It may be stated that on 25.11.08, the dead body of the victim was found floating in the river called "Killing". 9. Thereafter, an inquest was done on the body of the deceased and same was sent to hospital for post mortem examination. In the meantime, some articles, such as, SIM Card, money bag etc., believed to be of deceased were also recovered from the place where the dead body was found on 25.11.08. In course of time, the I.O. did other needful including the examination of the witnesses as well as the arresting of accused persons and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet U/s. 365/201/302/34 IPC against accused persons and forwarded them to Court to stand trial. 10. The learned Magistrate, before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence U/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. 10. The learned Magistrate, before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence U/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon on receipt of the case on commitment and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to frame charges U/s.365/302/201/34 IPC against accused persons and the charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 18 (eighteen) witnesses including the informant, Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the I.O. of the case. Statements of accused persons were also recorded U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Their pleas were of total denial and claimed that they had falsely been implicated with the crime in question. However, they declined to adduce any evidence in their defence. 12. On conclusion of the trial, and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict accused persons of offence U/s. 364/302/201/34 IPC and sentenced them punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeals citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 13. Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2013 has submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record against accused persons to convict them of offences, they were charged with. In that connection, it has been stated that prosecution has placed heavy reliance on several witnesses, more particularly, on testimonies of Sri Dharani Sutradhar (P.W. 1), Sri Sudhan Roy (P.W. 6), Sri Chatra Sing Das (P.W. 8), Md. Sahidul Ali (P.W. 11), Md. Mahar Ali (P.W. 12), Faizul Rahman (P.W. 13) and Abdul Khalil (P.W. 14) but their testimonies cannot be relied on since such evidence of contradictory and inconsistent on material points. 14. In support of such contention, it has been stated that though P.W. 1 makes some statements before the Court implicating accused persons with the crime in question, yet, he never chose to divulge such story before the police during investigation which caused most part of the evidence of the P.W. 1 to suffer from vice which is called as contradiction and which makes the evidence of P.W. 1 wholly unreliable. 15. 15. Though the evidence of P.W. 8 was relied on to show that accused Sweet Hussain made an extra judicial confession, yet, such extrajudicial confession too became inadmissible since such extrajudicial confession was allegedly made in presence of police personnel. Being so, no reliance could have been placed over such extra judicial confession reportedly made by accused Sweet Hussain. 16. On the other hand, though testimonies of P.W. 9, P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 were utilized to show the connection of the accused, Sweet Hussain with the seized articles which reportedly owned by the deceased, yet, such evidence hardly accomplishes the goal assigned to it Therefore, the evidence of those witnesses could render no help to the prosecution case. 17. On the other hand, most of the prosecution witnesses, viz. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 17 turned hostile since they refused to own up statements which they reportedly made before the I.O. during investigation. It is a settled law that statements before the police are not the substantive evidence. More importantly, statements before police can be used only for limited purpose as stated in Section 162 Cr.P.C. 18. However, the learned Trial Court chose to place huge reliance on statements of those witnesses which they made before the police during investigation. What is worse is that the learned trial court used those statements before the police recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence in coming to the conclusion that charges against accused persons were proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. It is also his case that there is absolutely no evidence against accused Anita Mali to implicate her with the offences, she was charged with. Elaborating the same, Mr. B.M. Choudhury contends that the evidence against accused Anita Mali cannot be graduated to legal evidence since statements made by P.Ws. in the case in hand is not evidence as contemplated in law. 20. The learned counsel for accused Anita Mali, therefore, submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that accused Anita Mali in league with Sweet Hussain had abducted the victim, killed him thereafter and then concealed his dead body in order to wash away the evidence against them so as to screen them from punishment. He, therefore, urges this Court to allow the appeal on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 21. He, therefore, urges this Court to allow the appeal on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 21. Adopting the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, Anita Mali, Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant Sweet Hussain further contended that though the prosecution made a desperate attempt to connect accused Sweet Hussain with the offences he was charged with, yet, such attempt hardly achieved any result since there is no legal evidence to show even remotely that accused Sweet Hussain in league with accused Anita had committed the crime in question. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant Sweet Hussain, therefore, urges this Court to allow the appeal, preferred by Sweet Hussain on setting aside the judgment under question and also to acquit him of offences, he was convicted of and punished as aforesaid. 23. Mr. M. Das, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, appearing on behalf of the State respondent, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has placed on record indisputable evidence in the form of testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10, P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 13, P.W. 14 and P.W. 18 to show that accused persons in league with one another abducted the victim on 08.11.2008 and killed him same day and then threw his dead body to Killing river. Being so, the judgment under challenge needs to be confirmed on dismissing the appeal preferred by the accused/appellants. 24. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties having regard to the evidence on record. A perusal of the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.-1, father of the deceased and P.W. 18, Sri Netra Kamal Saikia, coupled with the averments made in the F.I.R. Ext. 1, reveals that the son of P.W. 1 had gone missing with effect from 08.11.08 and he remained so till his dead body was discovered from the place aforesaid on 25.11.08. 25. The evidence of Doctor confirms that the victim died few days before the discovery of the dead body since by the time, he got the opportunity to conduct post mortem examination on the dead body, the body of the victim had already been attacked by maggot. The dead body being attacked by the maggot clearly shows that the victim died weeks before he conducted post mortem examination thereon. 26. The dead body being attacked by the maggot clearly shows that the victim died weeks before he conducted post mortem examination thereon. 26. We have also found from record that the body of the victim was found tied on legs and hands. The hands were tied on the back side of the body. Such evidence coupled with evidence of P.W. 1 as well as the evidence of doctor and other attending facts and circumstances make it more than clear that the victim died a homicidal death on or around 08.11.2008. 27. So situated, let us see how the victim met his death on or about 08.11.2008. We have found that the star prosecution campaigner is P.W. 1. Though he has stated before the Court that on 08.11.2008, his son went to the rented house of his wife Anita, situated at Jagiroad and got involved in a quarrel with her there, yet, he did not divulge such vital information to the police during investigation. 28. In the same way, his evidence that Anita informed him over phone that she could finish of her husband at Jagiroad, his evidence that he persuaded his son to return home immediately and his evidence that sometime thereafter, he rang up his son but he found his mobile phone in switched off mode had never been divulged to the I.O. during investigation which make his evidence to suffer from the vice which is commonly called as contradiction and which makes such evidence unsafe for reliance. 29. We have found that P.W. 7 deposes that he made statements before the Magistrate during the course of investigation and such statement was proved as Ext. 6. Ext. 6, we have found, contains a statement implicating accused persons with the crime in question. However, statement in Ext. 6, in our opinion cannot be relied on since in his cross examination, he firmly claims that the statement in Ext. 6 was extracted from him by the police putting him under huge pressure and intimidation. His claim that such a statement was extracted from him after keeping him under arrest for a couple of days makes such a conclusion inevitable. 30. We have found that the prosecution has placed some reliance on the testimony of P.W. 8, namely, Sri Chatra Sing Das since he is found saying that accused Sweet Hussain confessed his guilt before the public. 30. We have found that the prosecution has placed some reliance on the testimony of P.W. 8, namely, Sri Chatra Sing Das since he is found saying that accused Sweet Hussain confessed his guilt before the public. But such confession is inadmissible in law since there is again evidence on record to show that such confession was made in presence of police personnel. 31. It may be stated that testimonies of P.W. 9 to P.W. 14 were pressed into action to show that accused Sweet Hussain was seen loitering on the bank of Killing river in a very suspicious manner on 9.8.11. The prosecution also uses their evidences to show that some articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the place where accused Sweet Hussain was found loitering on 9.11.08. Such effort was made to link between the death of the deceased and the accused Sweet Hussain. 32. However, such effort too fails. This is because of the fact that though there is evidence in the form of testimony of P.W. 12 to show that he found accused Sweet Hussain at the place aforesaid on or around 09.11.2008, yet, he is also found saying that Sweet Hussain used to go to such place since he had sand Mahal at the place aforesaid. 33. Though some of those P.Ws. are also found saying that on or around 09.11.2008, some articles such as, SIM card, money bag etc., are found at the place where dead body was discovered on 25.11.2008, yet, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that those articles belonged to the deceased. Therefore, prosecution miserably fails to link up accused Sweet Hussain with the crime in question on the basis of evidence aforementioned. 34. We have already found that the victim gone missing since 08.11.2008 and he remained so till his dead body was found floating in killing river on 25.11.2008 but evidence on record could not connect any of the accused persons with the crime they were charged with. Our foregoing discussion has made it more than clear which needs no further reiteration and therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution could not prove the charges leveled against the accused persons. 35. Our foregoing discussion has made it more than clear which needs no further reiteration and therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution could not prove the charges leveled against the accused persons. 35. We have noticed that P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 17 had turned hostile to the prosecution case since they refused to own up statements, they reportedly made before the police during investigation. However, the learned Trial Court placed heavy reliance on the statements which those witnesses which they reportedly rendered before the police during investigation in coming to the conclusion that accused persons had abducted on 08.11.2008, killed him same day and thereafter, they threw his dead body to the killing river. 36. However, such reliance is not permissible under the law since the statement made before the police by witness during the course of investigation is not a substantive evidence. Such statement can be utilized in a trial for very limited purposes so specified in Section 162 Cr.P.C. A verdict of guilt which was rendered basically on statements of the witnesses recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside. 37. In view of what we have discussed hereinbefore and what have emerged there from, we are of the opinion that the prosecution could not at all make out the charges leveled against any of the accused persons and, therefore, the judgment in question under which accused persons were convicted of offences they are charged with and were punished as aforesaid needs to be quashed and set aside. 38. In view of above, the judgment under challenge stands quashed and set aside. 39. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and accused persons are acquitted of the offences aforesaid. They are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are not required in connection with any other cases. Return the LCR forthwith.