Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1620 (GAU)

Nur Islam v. State of Assam

2018-11-15

A.K.GOSWAMI, AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. By these appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order, dated 13.07.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 187 (M)/2013 arising out of G.R. Case No. 93/2013, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for another 6 (six) months under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these 3 (three) criminal appeals by this common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J.C.R. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. H. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 342/2017, Crl. A. (J) No. 89/2017 and Crl.A. No. 386/2017. 3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it is necessary to set out brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeals. 4. One Taijuddin, S/o Late Iman Ali, R/o Goraimari, Bongaigaon, lodged a First Information Report (for short, 'FIR'), on 11.03.2013, with the Officer-in- Charge, Manikpur Police Station alleging that on 06.03.2013 at around 5.00 pm, the appellant Hanif Ali hired his Bolero Max vehicle bearing registration No. AS- 01BC-4433 to bring turmeric from Hojai, after settling the fare with the driver Hafizur Rahman (deceased) at the tea-stall of Shahajamal (PW. 1), in presence of his wife (PW. 4) and others and accordingly, took away the vehicle. It was further alleged that since then the whereabouts of the driver along with the vehicle was not known despite 6 (six) days having elapsed. 5. Based on the above FIR, Manikpur P.S. Case No. 44/2013 under Sections 365/368/34 of the IPC was registered and the Officer-in-Charge ASI Rajendra Talukdar (PW 13) himself took up the investigation of the case. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined witnesses, drew up a sketch map of the two place of occurrence i.e. Samkabari, took delivery of the dead body of the said driver from Umiam P.S., seized some materials including one motor cycle and one Mobile hand-set, arrested the appellants and on completion of the investigation, Inspector Dilip Dutta laid a Charge-Sheet under Sections 365/368/302/34 of the IPC against the appellants. 6. 6. It may be mentioned that the dead body of the deceased was recovered by the Police of Umiam P.S., Meghalaya and it had sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Nongpoh Civil Hospital, Meghalaya. Further, one plastic rope was also seized. 7. The Charge-Sheeted offences being triable by the Court of sessions, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bijni, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon for trial after observing necessary formalities required under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. vide order, dated 04.12.2013, passed in G R. Case No. 93/2013. The learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, after considering the materials on the Case Diary and hearing the learned counsel of both the sides framed charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants vide order, dated 02.01.2014, passed in Sessions Case No. 187 (M)/2013. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Autopsy Surgeon. After completion of evidence of the prosecution side, the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded vide order, dated 23.03.2017. The appellants pleaded innocence and declined to examine any witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the sides, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as stated above. 8. In Crl. A. (J) No. 89/2017, Mr. J.C.R. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant Hanif Ali, submitted that the prosecution case wholly rests on the circumstantial evidence laid against the said appellant. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the learned trial Court failed to consider the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the P Ws concerning the appellant Hanif Ali, who allegedly negotiated and hired the vehicle of PW. 7 at the tea-stall of PWs. 1 and 4, situated at Chamkabari Chariali. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the fact of hiring the vehicle of PW. 7 has been contradicted by PW. 7 himself stating that Hanif Ali, after his arrest stated before the Police that co-appellants Khabir, Nur Islam and Afzal, in fact, hired the vehicle and further, by PW. 9, the brother of the deceased, who stated that it was the appellant Afzal, who hired the vehicle and had killed Hafizur along with co-appellant Khabir after administering intoxicating substance to him. According to Mr. 9, the brother of the deceased, who stated that it was the appellant Afzal, who hired the vehicle and had killed Hafizur along with co-appellant Khabir after administering intoxicating substance to him. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to establish the link of appellant Hanif to the commission of the offence of murder of Hafizur at Umiam, near Barapani, Shillong. 9. In Crl. A. No. 342/2017, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, appearing for the appellants, namely, Nur Islam and Afzal Hussain submitted that the circumstances that emerged from evidence do not warrant conviction of the said appellants. According to Mr. Mahmud, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory, confusing and full of discrepancies on material points. Drawing attention to the evidence of PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, Mr. Mahmud submitted that there is no consistency in their evidence, if cross-examination parts are taken into consideration. PW. 1, who was the owner of the vehicle, which was driven by the deceased Hafizur, only heard from his wife/P W. 4 that the appellant Hanif Ali hired the vehicle of PW7 from Hafizur at their tea-stall and on the next day at about 10.00 am, when Hafizur came to his shop, he told that the appellant Hanif had hired his Bolero to go to Shillong. However, in cross-examination, he categorically stated that at the relevant time of hiring the vehicle, he was not present. On the other hand, his wife/PW. 4 although corroborated the evidence of her husband, she could not remember the date on which the vehicle was so hired by the appellant Hanif Ali rendering her entire evidence confusing as to whether such hiring of vehicle had taken place preceding the mysterious death of the said vehicle driver near Shillong. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that scrutiny of the evidence on record, thus, clearly shows that the entire evidence in regard to involvement of the appellant Hanif Ali is inconsistent and unbelievable. 10. In Crl. A. No. 386/2017, Mr. H. R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that scrutiny of the evidence on record, thus, clearly shows that the entire evidence in regard to involvement of the appellant Hanif Ali is inconsistent and unbelievable. 10. In Crl. A. No. 386/2017, Mr. H. R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Khabir Ali submitted that there is absolutely no material to justify conviction of the appellant, inasmuch as all the non-official prosecution witnesses were hearsay and improved their versions over their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and as such, not legally sustainable. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the learned Trial Court believed the evidence of PW. 13, the Investigating Officer that the appellant made confession to the commission of the alleged offence, but overlooked the fact that he was not forwarded to the Court with a prayer to get his confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as such, the so called extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before him is clearly hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the statement of an accused cannot be the sole basis of conviction and there is no independent corroborative testimony to prove the complicity of the said appellant in the commission of the crime. In support of his argument, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in S.D. Soni Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1991) 1 SCJ 175, wherein, it was observed that in a case in which the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is said to be drawn by the prosecution must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the appellant, but also they must entirely be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. Mr. Choudhury contended that in this case each of the circumstantial evidence brought against the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to establish the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offence of murder of Hafizur. Mr. Choudhury contended that in this case each of the circumstantial evidence brought against the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to establish the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offence of murder of Hafizur. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal & Anr, reported in (1989) 1 SCJ 314. 11. Per contra, Mr. H. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No. 1 in all the above appeals, while admitting some inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, submitted that starting from the FIR to the evidence of PW. 13, the investigating officer, there is consistent and cogent evidence establishing the complicity of the appellant Hanif Ali in the commission of murder of Hafizur Rahman, the driver of the vehicle of PW. 7 near Barapani, Shillong, Meghalaya, as the prosecution witnesses consistently stated that it was he, who hired the vehicle at the tea-stall of PWs. 1 and 4 from its driver Hafizur and then, handed over the vehicle to appellants Afzal and Nur Islam, who, thereafter, forcibly took the said vehicle towards Shillong and on the way, killed him by fastening a plastic rope around his neck, which is manifestly proved, inter-alia, by the evidence of PW. 2/the Autopsy Surgeon, who found ligature mark around his neck during post-mortem examination. 12. In the instant case, the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident of murder of Hafizur at Umiam, Meghalaya. Circumstantial evidence can be relied on when they form a complete chain of events without any missing link and they conclusively point at the accused only. In Namala Subha Rao Vs. 12. In the instant case, the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident of murder of Hafizur at Umiam, Meghalaya. Circumstantial evidence can be relied on when they form a complete chain of events without any missing link and they conclusively point at the accused only. In Namala Subha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2007 CrLJ 47 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the evidence to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and held that before the conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be fully established:- "(i) Concerned circumstances must (not may) be fully established; (ii) facts as established have to be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused so much so that such hypothesis would remain unexplainable; (iii) circumstances have to be conclusive in nature; (iv) those circumstances would be incapable of any hypothesis other then guilt of the accused; and (v) in the chain of such circumstances there would be no missing link so as to suggest the probability of innocence of the accused." 13. Now, in the light of the above principles, let us appreciate the evidence on record on each of the circumstances laid by the prosecution in the case. 14. Firstly, the prosecution has set up the case of last seen together of the appellant Hanif Ali and deceased Hafizur Rahman. According to PW. 7 Taijuddin, the informant and owner of the Bolero Max vehicle bearing registration No. AS- 01BC-4433, on 06.03.2013, appellant Hanif Ali hired his said vehicle to carry turmeric from Hojeri and after settlement of fare at about 7 pm, his driver Hafizur Rahman (deceased) accordingly left home with the vehicle, without a handyman and since then he remained untraced. P W. 7 stated the facts of hiring of his vehicle to carry turmeric from Hojai and leaving of his said driver with vehicle, without handyman and since then he remained untraced for 6 days were mentioned in the FIR (a missing information), dated 10.03.2013, vide Ext. 3. He stated that he came to know all about hiring of his vehicle by appellant Hanif, when his driver Hafizur informed him over phone and Hafizur left home with the vehicle at about 7 pm. 3. He stated that he came to know all about hiring of his vehicle by appellant Hanif, when his driver Hafizur informed him over phone and Hafizur left home with the vehicle at about 7 pm. But he did not mention these material facts in the F.I.R. and that he was supposed to be accompanied by three other traders, namely, appellants Khabir, Nur Islam and Afeal. 15. In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in Criminal Appeal No. 1892/2017, decided on May 01, 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the last seen together theory as a fact of circumstantial evidence is a weak kind of evidence if conviction is to be solely based on it. However, if there are incriminating circumstances coupled with the last seen together theory then the same is a corroborative evidence to implicate the accused. It is observed that in such cases, if the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds then the motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference of guilt of the accused. If there is any break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go on the accused. 16. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Danny Morris Momin, the doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination of Hafizur Rahman (as unknown person), on 07.03.2013, held the opinion that his death was due to shock as a result of asphyxia caused due to strangulation of the neck vide Ext. 1, the postmortem report. He stated in cross examination that he did not mention the approximate time of death of the deceased. In absence of any evidence to the contrary on scrutiny of the evidence, oral and documentary, it appears to us that the cause of death of Hafizur Rahman was undoubtedly a 'culpable homicide', defined in Section 299 of the I.P.C. and amounted to 'murder', which is defined in Section 300 of the IPC. 17. Lending corroboration to the evidence of PW. 7, PW. 1 Sahjamal Ali and his wife PW. 17. Lending corroboration to the evidence of PW. 7, PW. 1 Sahjamal Ali and his wife PW. 4 Sahida Khatun deposed that negotiation for hiring the vehicle of P W. 7 had taken place at their tea-stall, situated at Samkabari, between the appellant Hanif and the driver Hafizur, but in cross-examination P W. 1 stated that he was not present at that time and on the other hand, PW. 4 did not state this material fact before the Police. Similar is the evidence of PW. 5 Saidul Ali. In examination-in-chief, PW. 5 deposed that before approaching the driver Hafizur (deceased), the appellant approached him for his vehicle to carry turmeric from Hojal, but he refused as his vehicle was an old one and thereafter, he was seen talking to someone, over phone, and hired a vehicle for Rs. 8,000/- and later on, he came to know that Hanif hired the vehicle of Hafizur. However, in cross-examination, PW. 5 denied the defence suggestion that the fact of appellant Hann approach of him for hiring of his vehicle was not stated in his statement given before the Police. The evidence of PW. 6 Akkash Ali appears to have no significance in the case as he only stated that one day, Hafizur (deceased) got his Bolero Vehicle repaired at his motor garage located at Samkabari and as such, the defence declined to cross-examine him. PW. 8 Ali Hussain stated that one day, he heard about hiring of a vehicle driven by Hafizur (deceased) and he was present when the police seized one motorcycle from appellant Khabir by Ext. 2, the seizure memo. The evidence of P W 10 Hajrat Ali is similar to PW 5 and unequivocally stated in cross-examination that he did not know who hired the vehicle of PW. 7 Taijuddin. 18. Turning to the evidence of P W 9 Jinnat Ali, the brother of the deceased Hafizur, we find him deposing in examination-in-chief that on 06.03.2013 at about 06.30/7.00 pm, he came across his said brother, who was leaving with the vehicle and informed him that he was going to Hojai, on hire, to lift turmeric and further, when he (PW.9) asked him to go along with a handyman, he declined as 3 (three) traders will accompany with him and since then, he remained untraced as his mobile phone was found to be in switched off mode. Therefore, he verbally informed the matter at Manikpur P.S. and recognized Ext. 12, the relevant G.D. Entry No. 248, dated 10.03.2013, at 9.45 am. Perusal of the contents of this Ext. 12, the relevant G.D. Entry reveals that one Kitab Ali had arranged the booking of the vehicle, who was neither charge-sheeted nor examined in the case. The aforesaid G, D. Entry shows that PW. 9 informed the Police after 4 (four) days after Hafizur had gone missing along with the vehicle, since 06.03.2013, evening, rendering his aforesaid piece of evidence not reliable for want of explanation on such inordinate delay. According to PW. 9, when he enquired from the appellant Hanif about the whereabouts of his brother Hafizur, at a later stage of interrogation, he disclosed the names of the appellants Nur Islam and Afzal Hussain, who hired the vehicle and on Afzal being interrogated at his home, he admitted to hiring of the vehicle, and after such disclosure, he (PW. 9) handed over him to the Police. This fact of handing over of the appellant Afzal to Police has come in the evidence of PW. 13, the Investigating Officer. According to PW. 13, after taking custody of Afzal, further clues to the entire incident had come to light so far as the involvement of the other appellants was concerned. 19. Thus, we find, there is no consistency in the evidence of PWs regarding the fact of hiring of the vehicle of Taijuddin (PW. 7) by the appellant Hanif and accordingly, his last seen together with Hafizur (deceased) whose dead body was found at Umsokhwah, Meghalaya, on the following day, that is 07.03.2013. 20. To sum up, we find that the above testimony of the PWs, in their examination-in-chief, has been thoroughly contradicted in their cross-examinations and confirmed, when the defence drew attention to their statements given before PW 13/the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to PW 13, PW. 1 Shahjamal Ali did not state that on the following day at about 10.00 am, Hafizul came to his shop and told that the appellant Hanif had hired his vehicle to go to Shillong. PW. 5/Saidul Ali also did not state that when he was in the tea-stall of PW 1, Hanif approached him to hire his vehicle for the purpose of bringing turmeric, to which he declined. PW. PW. 5/Saidul Ali also did not state that when he was in the tea-stall of PW 1, Hanif approached him to hire his vehicle for the purpose of bringing turmeric, to which he declined. PW. 13/the Investigating Officer further stated that P W 8 Ali Hussain did not state before him that the appellant Hanif had hired the vehicle which was driven by Hafizur. So far the evidence of PW 9 Jinnat Ali is concerned, PW. 13/the investigating officer contradicted his evidence deposing that one Kitab Ali negotiated for hiring the vehicle and that on 06.03.2013, evening, he came across Hafizur (deceased) and from him he came to know that he was going to Hojai as his vehicle was hired to bring turmeric from Hojai and that he did not require any handyman as three traders were supposed to accompany him and thereafter, since 8.30 pm, he remained untraced. We further find that PW. 9 did not state in his statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that PW, 4 stated before him that she heard the appellant Hanif negotiating with the driver Hafizur, anther shop, for hiring his vehicle to lift turmeric and thereafter, when he interrogated the appellant Hanif, the later stated that the appellants Afzal and Nur had taken away the vehicle on hire and then after further interrogation, the appellant Afzal confessed to have taken away the vehicle and thereafter, handed over the appellant Afzal to the Police. 21. Thus, we find the contradictions of the PWs with their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. being material, such of their evidence cannot be relied on and in consequence, the identity of the person, who, in fact, hired the Bolero Vehicle of P W 7 for the purpose of lifting turmeric from Hojai has become clouded. Perusal of the FIR also reveals that PW. 7, the informant, did not mention the name of the said persons except the appellant Hanif Ali despite knowing the names of the other persons/appellants, herein and one Kitab Ali hired the vehicle in question. In the aforesaid backdrop of contradictions in evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the first circumstance laid by the prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. In the aforesaid backdrop of contradictions in evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the first circumstance laid by the prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. The second circumstance that has been laid by the prosecution is that the dead body of Hafizur Rahman, the driver of the vehicle of PW 7 Taijuddin, was found on 07.03.2013 at about 9.30 am, on the road side of Umsokhwah village under Umiam P.S., Meghalaya with his neck fastened with a plastic rope. P.W. 12 entered the aforesaid information in Umiam P.S. G.D. Entry No. 127, dated 07.03.2013. In this regard, PW. 12 Pherbak Singh Marwein, the Officer-in-Charge of Umiam P.S. stated that he received an information about an unknown dead body of an youth being found from the village Secretary, Umsowkhwah and accordingly he rushed to the place. He conducted inquest on the dead body in presence of witnesses vide Ext. 5, the inquest report. He found no external injury on the dead body except a ligature mark around the neck. He seized the plastic rope vide Ext. 6, the seizure memo. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination and transmitted W.T. Messages to all the Police stations of Meghalaya and the neighboring Police stations of Assam intimating about recovery of the dead body of an unknown person. According to this witness, on receipt of the said information communicated through W.T. message, PW. 13 SI Rajani Talukdar of Manikpur P.S. accompanied by the appellant Afzal Hussain went to Umiam P.S. and thereafter, he (PW. 12) accompanied them to the same place of recovery of the dead body and the appellant Afzal, as he wanted to, pointed out the place, where he had thrown the dead body of the deceased. Here, it needs to be mentioned that no copy of the Umiam P.S. G D. Entry No. 127, dated 07.03.2013, was furnished to PW. 13 which was relevant to this case. PW. 12 in his statement given before him, (P.W. 13) did not state that the appellant Afzal pointed out the place where he had thrown the dead body of Hafizur. 23. In Sanatan Naskar Vs. 13 which was relevant to this case. PW. 12 in his statement given before him, (P.W. 13) did not state that the appellant Afzal pointed out the place where he had thrown the dead body of Hafizur. 23. In Sanatan Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 249 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly state that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of the information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of the Police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 24. In Geejaganda Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1355 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Section 27 is a proviso to sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. A statement is generally termed as disclosure statement leading to the discovery of facts, which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly, it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. 25. In the instant case, as stated above, as per PW. 12, SI Pherbak Singh Marwein of Umiam P.S., the appellant Afzal Hussain pointed out the place at Umsokhwah village, Meghalaya, where he had thrown the dead body of Hafizur, in presence of him to PW. 13, the Investigating Officer. What is noticed here is that the prosecution did not exhibit the sketch map of the place of occurrence wherefrom the dead body was previously recovered, drawn initially by PW. 12, but exhibited the one that was drawn by PW, 13, on 14.03.2013, vide Ext. 8, that is, after 6 days of recovery of the dead body on 7.3.2013 and also after the photograph of the dead body was shown to him by PW. 12, but exhibited the one that was drawn by PW, 13, on 14.03.2013, vide Ext. 8, that is, after 6 days of recovery of the dead body on 7.3.2013 and also after the photograph of the dead body was shown to him by PW. 12, that is, before proceeding to the aforesaid place of recovery of the dead body and further, after transmitting the W.T. Messages to all the Police stations of Meghalaya and the neighboring Police Stations of Assam, No copy of such W.T. Message was also exhibited in the case to ascertain that the text it contained related to the description of the dead body such as age, dress, colour etc. 26. On the other hand, it was on the basis of disclosure of the co-appellant Hanif Ali to the effect that after hiring the vehicle, he handed over the vehicle to the appellant Afzal Hussain, who(Afzal Hussain), in course of interrogation, gave a statement that he was accompanied by the appellant Nur Hussain and both of them took the driver Hafizur Rahman towards Shillong and killed him in a jungle area. According to him, based on a written statement given before him (PW. 13), the appellant Afzal Hussain, who assured to point out the place, where the dead body of Hafizur was thrown, he was taken first to Umiam P.S. on 14.03.2013, and then, all of them including P.W. 12 proceeded to the place as pointed out by the appellant Afzal, he (PW. 13) drew up a second sketch map vide Ext. 8, after PW. 12 had drawn the first one, Thereafter, PW. 9 Jinnat Ali, who allegedly accompanied the Police (P W 13 and others), went to Nongpoh Civil Hospital morgue, where he identified the dead body of his brother Hafizur (deceased), took delivery of the dead body and handed over to the family of the deceased. Perusal of the evidence of PW. 9 reveals that the appellant Afzal Hussain disclosed before him that he hired the vehicle of PW. 7 and he and the co-appellant Khabir Ali administered intoxicating substance to the deceased Hafizur and then fastened his neck with a rope and threw off the dead body at a place in Meghalaya and sold out the vehicle at a price of Rs. 2,40,000/-. His (PW. 7 and he and the co-appellant Khabir Ali administered intoxicating substance to the deceased Hafizur and then fastened his neck with a rope and threw off the dead body at a place in Meghalaya and sold out the vehicle at a price of Rs. 2,40,000/-. His (PW. 9) cross-examination shows that the defence did not cross-examine him on the aforesaid statement made in examination-in-chief and this witness denied the defence suggestion that he did not state anything except recovery and seizure of a motor cycle (by Ext. 2, the seizure memo), out of the possession of the appellant Khabir Ali. In cross-examination, PW. 13 SI Rajendra Talukdar, the investigating officer categorically denied that P W 9 stated those facts in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, we find his (PW.9) evidence not wholly reliable, more particularly, his evidence aforementioned implicating the appellant Afzal and Khabir in the commission of the offences and that Afzal led the police to the said place in Umiam, Meghalaya. There is no explanation from the prosecution side as to why the sketch map of the place of recovery of the dead body of Hafizur drawn by PW. 12, S.I. Pherbak Singh Marwein of Umiam RS., was suppressed and only the sketch map drawn by PW. 13, the investigating officer vide Ext. 8 was exhibited in the case. We notice, Ext. 8, the sketch map, dated 14.03.2013, was drawn when there was no dead body of Hafizur as the same had been recovered by PW 12, on 7.3.2013 and removed for post mortem examination rendering us unable to ascertain whether on both the occasions, the place was the same and the said place was exactly pointed out by the appellant Afzal if he was really taken to Umiam, Meghalaya to show the place, where the dead body of Hafizur was thrown. In this case, no statement of the appellant leading to the place of recovery of the dead body of Hafizur is proved. In other words, in the instant case, the disclosure statement allegedly made by the said appellant, who was in custody of police at the relevant time, did not apparently precede the recovery of the dead body of Hafizur. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the alleged disclosure statement made by the appellant Afzal Hussain before PW. In other words, in the instant case, the disclosure statement allegedly made by the said appellant, who was in custody of police at the relevant time, did not apparently precede the recovery of the dead body of Hafizur. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the alleged disclosure statement made by the appellant Afzal Hussain before PW. 13, the Investigating Officer, is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the same cannot conclusively be said to be a link in the chain of proof implicating him and the co appellant Khabir beyond all reasonable doubt. 27. On perusal of the evidence of P. W. 11 S.I. Gita Rani Hazarika and P. W. 14 Inspector Dilip Dutta, it is found that the former seized call detail report (CDR) of mobile phone, bearing SIM 9707318416, w.e.f, 4.3.2013 to 13.03.2013, vide Ext. 4, the seizure memo, whereas the latter laid the charge-sheet vide Ext. 9, based on the evidence collected by P.W. 13, the investigating officer. We, therefore, find their evidence not very relevant to our discussion on evidence as above. 28. Thus, on scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that the appraisal of evidence by the learned Trial Court manifestly suffered from non-appraisal of the crucial cross-examination of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective. In this connection, we feel it appropriate to recall the general principles of appreciation of evidence observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 29. In C. Magesh Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 645 , it was observed that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witnesses requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its credibility. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. 30. In State of U.P. Vs. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. 30. In State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal & Anr (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amount to' proof is an exercise particular to each case. Doubts would be reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favorite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it is must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused-persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense, it must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective-element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common-sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused-persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. 31. In the case in hand, the evidence-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses is successfully impeached by the defence in their cross-examination by eliciting material contradictions with their statements given under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, rendering their incriminating evidence in-chief against the appellants not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby enhanced the credibility of their plea of innocence taken in the statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 32. Consequently, the appeals stand allowed and accordingly, the impugned judgment and order, dated 13.07.2017, passed in Sessions Case No. 187 (M)/2017 is set aside and the appellants are set at liberty. 33. Issue release order for the appellants, except Khabir Ali, who was released on bail. 34. Registry will send back the LCR. 35. This Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae be paid an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as remuneration.