JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. - The instant criminal appeal is against the judgment dated 16.7.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No. 13 of 2000 whereby and where under the sole appellant has been convicted for the charge under Section 302/201, IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 201, IPC with stipulation that both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated their arguments as also gone through the materials available on record. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in between 6 6.1999 to 9.6.1999 at village Dindiragaon, the sole appellant committed murder by intentionally causing death of the deceased Kartika Kanhar. The sole appellant and the deceased Kartika Kanhar went in a vehicle and while going, Kartika Kanhar, deceased took a sum of Rs.5,000/- with him along with other articles and on the way the sole appellant took away the money from him and assaulted him and when he became unconscious, the appellant dragged him and threw him in a pond causing death of the deceased Kartika Kanhar. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased floated in the pond water. The nearby people saw the dead body and reported the incident to the Officer-in-charge Phiringia Police Station. The Officer-in-charge proceeded to the spot, held inquest over the dead body and apprehended the culprit. The appellant while in police custody gave recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased from the pond and confessed to have killed the deceased The Officer-in-charge sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after obtaining the post mortem report and examining the witness, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant to face the trial. The Trial Court has framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302/201, IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, has examined 10 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O., one defence witness on behalf of the defence. 5. Out of the 10 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1. The Trial Court has framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302/201, IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, has examined 10 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O., one defence witness on behalf of the defence. 5. Out of the 10 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1. is Sudarsan Digal, who went to the spot and saw the floating of the dead body, P.W. 2-Damodar Patra is a witness to the seizure, who had seen that police seized some samples of earth and a piece of stone with blood like stains on 10.6 1999 and prepared the seizure list. P.W.3 - Indra Digal has stated that the appellant was moving in the village road with some unknown boy. P.W. 4-Astika Digal has stated that about a year back an old man came to the house of the appellant and that old man enquired about his son Kartika Kanhar saying that the deceased had gone with the appellant about 12 days back and he could not find out his son thereafter. Subsequently, thereafter, both the mother of the appellant and father of the deceased went to Phulbani in search of their sons. During that period, the appellant was absent from his village. P.W.5 is Kandi Kanhar, who stated that the appellant while in police custody stated in their presence that he had purchased some articles such as full pants, sarees, shirt and a pair of shoes out of Rs. 5,000/- taken by him from the deceased and kept those articles in his residence and saying so, he led the police party to the spot and gave recovery of those articles. A seizure list was prepared. Ext. 3 is the said seizure list. P.W.6 is Prasanta Kumar Das, who had stated that the accused was in jail custody along with him and after his release from jail, appellant used to occasionally visit his house and in this way, he came in contact with the appellant and that is how they became known to each other. The deceased Kartika Kanhar is the friend of P.W 6- Prasant Kumar Das and while coming to the house of P.W. 6, the appellant came in contact with him and thus, they known to each other. P.W.7 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body and found lacerated injury and depressed fractures. The deceased Kartika Kanhar is the friend of P.W 6- Prasant Kumar Das and while coming to the house of P.W. 6, the appellant came in contact with him and thus, they known to each other. P.W.7 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body and found lacerated injury and depressed fractures. He opined that the cause of death was due to shock resulting from the head injury, which were ante-mortem in nature. Ext. 5 is the carbon copy of the post mortem report. According to him, the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. P.W.8-Sankartan Kanhar is the father of the deceased, who had stated that on the 6th day of the month of occurrence, the appellant came to their house and enquired about his son Kartika. He told that Kartika had gone to the field and the appellant went away and again came to their house along with Kartika. After some time, his son and appellant went away in a vehicle and at that time Kartika deceased was wearing a full pant, shirt, boot and a wrist watch of HMT make. Kartika had carried some money with him. Subsequently, his son Kartika did not return home, so he went to the house of the appellant on 12th day of that month, who told that her son had gone to Phulbani and thereafter, he along with the mother of the appellant went to Phulbani in search of her son, but could not be able to find out him or Kartika, the deceased and later on, police kept in his zima. P.W.9 is the constable of police, who had proceeded to the spot as per the command certificate. The dead body was brought out from the water and inquest was prepared by the Officer-in-charge, who sent the dead body through him to the headquarters hospitals, Phulbani for post mortem examination. P.W. 10 is an independent witness, namely, Jogendra Bisoi, who has stated that while the appellant was in police custody, made confession in their presence regarding commission of the crime and stated that after commission of murder he tied a lungi to the leg of the deceased and dragged the dead body to the pond and kept concealed that lungi under the water of that pond. So saying, he entered inside the water of the pond and gave recovery of that Lung from that pond. Police seized that Lungi and prepared the seizure list. He along with others signed on the seizure list, which is Ext. 4 and signature is Ext. 4/2. 6. P.W. 11 is the Investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and in course thereof, he recovered the dead body and prepared the inquest report Ext. 1, took photographs of the dead body while it was floating in the water and after bringing out the dead body from the water, it was noticed that two stones were placed on the lower portion of the dead body and another stone was lying nearby in the water and the upper portion of the dead body was floating. During inquest, some injuries were noticed on the dead body at a distance of about 50 meters from the place where the dead body was found, some blood patches along with a boulder stained with blood were noticed by him. He also found a mudstained shirt lying under a bridge at a distance of one kilometer from the spot. Thereafter he dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination through the same constable by issuing dead body challan and on the same day, he seized the blood stained boulders, blood stained earth and sample earth from the near the spot along with mud stained shirt in presence of witnesses as per Ext.2. On 18.6.1999 he received the report. It was a homicidal death. He drew up the plain paper F.I.R., which was marked as Ext. 10, registered the case and took up investigation and in course thereof, he examined the witnesses and proceeded to the village of the deceased and came to know from the parents the deceased that their son was missing since last few days. It was a homicidal death. He drew up the plain paper F.I.R., which was marked as Ext. 10, registered the case and took up investigation and in course thereof, he examined the witnesses and proceeded to the village of the deceased and came to know from the parents the deceased that their son was missing since last few days. He apprehended the appellant and while he was in custody, his confession was recorded in presence of one independent witness, namely, P.W. 10- Jogendra Bisoi and in the confession, the appellant has disclosed that after committing murder of Kartika, he had taken a cash of Rs.5,000/- from the pant pocket of the deceased and dragged the dead body by tying his own lungi to the dead body and kept the dead body inside the water placing three stones over it and brought his lungi and blood stained shirt of the deceased and kept them under the mud. The appellant also confessed that out of Rs.5,000/- stolen from the deceased, he had handed over Rs. 3,000/- to his wife and purchased some wearing apparels and other articles with the rest amount of Rs. 2000/- P.W. 11 recorded his statement under Section 7 of the Evidence Act and obtained the signature therein Ext. 11 is the statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On the basis of the confession made by the appellant, recovery of wearing apparels, i.e., a pair of shoe etc. from his house. The I.O. seized the same and prepared seizure list as per Ext. 3 Thereafter, he led him and the witnesses to Dehury Kheta water channel and gave discovery of the aforesaid lungi from the place of concealment and he seized the same under Ext. 4. Then the appellant led them to Peonpada of Phulbani Town where his wife was staying and gave discovery of cash of Rs. 3,000/- consisting of 6 nos. of Rs. 500/- G.C. notes which the appellant had given to his wife out of the stolen cash of Rs. 5,000/-. He seized the same in presence of witnesses as per Ext. 6. Later on, he released the cash of Rs. 3,000/- and a H.M T. wrist watch in the zima of Sankirtan Kanhar on 13.10.1999. of Rs. 500/- G.C. notes which the appellant had given to his wife out of the stolen cash of Rs. 5,000/-. He seized the same in presence of witnesses as per Ext. 6. Later on, he released the cash of Rs. 3,000/- and a H.M T. wrist watch in the zima of Sankirtan Kanhar on 13.10.1999. On the basis of these materials, the Trial Court has considered the plea of the prosecution as well as the defence and examined the same on the principle of last seen and confession leading to recovery and on its examination, he came to a definite finding that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the sole appellant without any reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted him for the offence under Section 302/201, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC and imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201, IPC. 7. The judgment passed by the Trial Court is before us for its scrutiny. 8. We after going through the records of the case as also the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and other materials available, have considered the case of the prosecution, plea of the defence and the finding given by the Trial Court There is no dispute about the fact that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, rather it is a case of last seen and confession leading to recovery and in these parameters, it is to be seen by us whether the judgment rendered by the Trial Court is perfect or not ? It is the settled proposition of law in criminal trial that merely on the ground of last seen or confession made before the police, no order of conviction can be passed unless the last seen is corroborated from the other piece of evidence of the confession of the accused leading to recovery and we on the basis of these settled proposition have examined the charge levelled against the sole appellant. 9. The F.I.R. has been instituted by the informant on the ground that the deceased had accompanied the sole appellant in a vehicle and thereafter, he was not seen in spite of all efforts having been made by his family members. 9. The F.I.R. has been instituted by the informant on the ground that the deceased had accompanied the sole appellant in a vehicle and thereafter, he was not seen in spite of all efforts having been made by his family members. When even after lapse of six days, the deceased, has not returned to his home, his father, P.W.8 proceeded to the residence of the sold appellant to enquire about his son, but he could not find the whereabouts of his son. The father of the deceased, P.W. 8 along with the mother of the sole appellant went to Phulbani in order to search-their son, but even in Phulbani, they have not got their sons. One fine morning, it was reported to the local police station that a dead body is there and accordingly, the local police rushed to the place of occurrence and took possession of the dead body as also the wearing apparels and other articles of the deceased and on its corroboration by PW. 8, the father of the deceased/was known that he was his son. The sole appellant was apprehended and record his confession before one independent witness, P.W. 10, namely, Jogendra Bisoi before whom he confessed the guilt and on the basis of his confession the articles have been seized, particularly, the lungi from which the sole appellant had dragged the dead body by tying the leg the dead body and kept the dead body inside water placing three stones over-it and brought his lungi and blood stained shirt of the deceased and kept them under the mud. The police on the basis of confession regarding concealment of that lungi rushed to the place of occurrence and recovered the lungi. In the facts and circumstances of the situation, it cannot be said that it is a case of only last seen, but the evidence on last seen has been corroborated by the confession leading to recovery of that lungi and the said statement has been taken as an evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and placing reliance upon the same, the Trial Court has come to a definite finding that it is not a simple case of last seen, rather it is a case of last seen with the other corroborative evidence leading to the evidence on the basis of confession the sole appellant. 10. 10. There is no dispute about the settled proposition that Section 27 of Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 to 26, which prohibit the proof a confession made to a Police Officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not", which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus, even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under Section 27, it is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible. For the applicability of Section 27, two conditions are pre-requisites, namely, (i) the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact and (ii)the information must "relate distinctly" to the fact discovered. It is now well settled principle of law that the recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence. It is also settled that the Court must disregard the inadmissible part of the statement and take note only that part of his evidence which distinctly relates to the discovery of the articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. It is further settled that discovery of the fact in this connection includes the discovery of an object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to his existence, Reference with respect to the aforesaid settled proposition may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446 (para-7) and Nisar Khan @ Guddu v. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 (9) SCC 386 (para - 6 to 8). The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue pertaining to the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian evidence Act, has pronounced a judgment in the case of Mehboob Ali and another v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 (9) JT 512 , wherein it has been held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act 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. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence, the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. 11. We have also perused the statement recorded by the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein specific question has been put by the Trial Court upon the appellant regarding the discovery of the lungi which although has been denied by the sole appellant, but the same cannot be disbelieved. The confession recorded by the police is in the presence of an independent witness, i.e. PW. 10, who is the Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat, before whom confession of the sole appellant has been recorded. He, on his own examination before the Court as P.W. 10, had affirmed the statement having been confessed by the sole appellant. 12. We, on the basis of these factual aspects and on close scrutiny of the judgment of the Trial Court, are of the firm view that the Trial Court has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter, particularly, the principle of last seen as also the confession leading to recovery and came to the conclusion that the chain of commission of offence is complete and taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, came to a definite finding that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the sole appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted him for the offence under Section 302/201, IPC. As such, we find no reason to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed