JUDGMENT & ORDER : ARINDAM LODH, J. This appeal is presented under Section 374 CrPC against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2 in case No. Sessions Trial 89 (WT/A) of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of which he is to suffer two years RI and also to suffer solitary confinement for a period of three months in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 74 of the IPC during the period of life imprisonment. 2. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Babul Choudhury, learned PP appearing for the State. 3. The projected prosecution case, in short, is that one Amrit Choudhury, the accused herein, had lodged an FIR stating inter alia, that while he was sleeping in his room on 26/27.07.2004 A.D. at about 0015 hrs on hearing some sound outside his room in the courtyard he woke up and ran out of the hut and found Malina Choudhury, his wife, aged about 35 years and Soma Choudhury, wife of his younger brother, Ajit Choudhury, aged about 22 years were lying dead in the courtyard with sharp cut injuries in the neck and cheek with profuse bleeding. Thereafter, he found his younger brother, Ajit Choudhury lying dead in the kitchen with cut injuries in the neck and cheek. It was understood that some unknown miscreants being armed with sharp cutting weapons had raided his house when his wife and younger brother’s wife were enjoying TV in the house and his brother was taking dinner in the kitchen. It was also understood that out of previous enmity the miscreants committed the murders with help of sharp cutting weapons. The numbers of miscreants were not ascertainable. They had fled away immediately after the incident towards the west. On hue and cry raised by him, the neighbouring people rushed to the spot. The matter was informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali Police Station on 27.07.2004 and on the basis of the complaint a specific case was registered as Amtali Police Station Case No. 52/2004 against the accused person and investigation was conducted by the Officer-in-Charge under Section 302 IPC. 4. The matter was informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali Police Station on 27.07.2004 and on the basis of the complaint a specific case was registered as Amtali Police Station Case No. 52/2004 against the accused person and investigation was conducted by the Officer-in-Charge under Section 302 IPC. 4. During investigation, the IO examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. He also visited the place of occurrence, arranged post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the three deceased and on completion of investigation, IO submitted the charge sheet on the basis of which charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and also exhibited some documents to prove the charge against the appellant. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC to which he strongly denied the allegations brought against him by the prosecution but he denied adducing any defence evidence on his side. 5. The learned trial court took up the following points for discussion and decision: (i) Whether the accused committed murder of Malina Choudhury, Soma Choudhury and Ajit Choudhury? (ii) Whether the accused did so intentionally? 6. After hearing the arguments from both sides, learned trial court found the appellant guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of which he is to suffer two years RI and also to suffer solitary confinement for a period of three months in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 74 of the IPC during the period of life imprisonment. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 8. True it is, that the present case involves gruesome murders where three persons of a family were brutally killed, two young women and a young man. There was no eye witness. During the course of investigation, the IO who himself is the Officer-in-Charge of the police station had arrested Amrit Choudhury, who is the elder brother of Ajit, the brother-in-law of Ajit’s wife Soma and the husband of Malina Choudhury. 9. There was no eye witness. During the course of investigation, the IO who himself is the Officer-in-Charge of the police station had arrested Amrit Choudhury, who is the elder brother of Ajit, the brother-in-law of Ajit’s wife Soma and the husband of Malina Choudhury. 9. The said Amrit Choudhury was arrested on 05.08.2004 and on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused, a blood stained dao (chopper) and lungi (wearing apparel) were recovered by the IO (PW15) in presence of PWs 6,7,8,9 &10 and recovery memo Exbt-MO4 & MO5 were made. Involvement of the accused-appellant was also unearthed on the basis of the said confessional statement. After conclusion of investigation charge sheet was submitted before the learned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. 10. We have noticed that the trial court on the basis of evidence of PWs 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 and PW15 (IO) held that the accused-appellant was guilty of the offence and treated the confessional statement under the custody of police in presence of PWs 6,7,8,9 & 10 as proved. 11. After careful perusal of the evidence and materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the following question would play a crucial role in helping us reaching an upright decision: (1) Whether compelling an accused to make statement in front of PWs 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 (who were informed by the IO to remain present in the house of PW6 prior to their arrival) would come within the purview of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, compelling an accused of an offence to be a witness against himself? (2) Whether the confessional statement made by the accused under custody of police is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act? (3) In absence of any eye witness whether each circumstance in the present case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? 12. It would be relevant to quote Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows: “Art. 20 – Protection in respect of conviction of offences – 1. ************ 2. *********** 3. No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 13. We have also taken note of the relevant provisions of Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 where identical protection has been ensured to an accused. 14. ************ 2. *********** 3. No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 13. We have also taken note of the relevant provisions of Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 where identical protection has been ensured to an accused. 14. The answer to the question above-mentioned lies in judicial pronouncement made by the Apex Court in a celebrated case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors., (1962) 3 SCR 10 , wherein it was held: (AIR P.1814, para 10) “10. ‘To be a witness’ may be equivalent to ‘furnishing evidence’ in the sense of making oral or written statements, but not in the larger sense of the expression so as to include giving of thumb impression or impression of palm or foot or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a part of the body…….. “Furnishing evidence” in the latter sense could not have been within the contemplation of the Constitution-makers for the simple reason that – though they may have intended to protect an accused person from the hazards of self incrimination, in the light of the English Law on the subject – they could not have intended to put obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of impressions of parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate himself, as to arm the agents of law and the law courts with legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice.” 15. Sections 25, 26 & 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, read as under: 25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. - No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.- No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. [Explanation- In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. [Explanation- In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George [***] or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882. 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.- Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether if amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 16. Section 25 of the Evidence Act clearly stated that no confession made to the police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by a person while he is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against such person unless the confession is made in presence of a Magistrate. 17. Section 27 starts with the word “provided”. Therefore, it is a proviso by way of exception to Sections 25 & 26. By the application of Section 27 the statement of the accused person can be split up. The portion relating to his confession remains inadmissible in evidence but the portion which leads to recovery of some other legal evidence can be used against the accused if the recovery is done in accordance with law. 18. Section 27 is a proviso by way of exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. In our considered view, if the facts deposed under Section 27 are not voluntary, then, it will not be admissible and will be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 19. In State of Karnataka Vs. David Razario and Anr., reported in 2002 Cri. LJ 4127, the Apex Court has held as follows: The first question is whether the evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi Admn. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Balakrishan ( AIR 1972 SC 3 ) and Md. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1976 SC 483 ). The words "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered are very important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent to the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as imposed by the preceding sections was presumably inspired by the fear of the Legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequences of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the information thus received from him. This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. 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 as 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. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Decision of Privy Council in Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor ( AIR 1947 PC 67 ), is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. [See State of Maharashtra v. Danu Gopinath Shirde and Ors. (2000) Cri LJ 2301]. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given.” 20. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given.” 20. This Court in Nirmal Deb Vs. State of Tripura [Crl. A.(J) 15/2014] at para 10 & 11 has held as follows: “10. The Apex Court in David Razario’s judgment clearly held that Section 27 only provides for admission of that evidence which otherwise would not have been admissible under Section 25 and 26 is the one which is information leading to discovery. It has been clearly laid down in Section 27 that only that portion of the statement which leads to discovery of any fact is admissible in evidence. 11. Section 27 envisages two conditions. The first is that the statement must be made while the accused is in the custody of the police and if the statement only relates to discovery of certain incriminating material, the statement is admissible in evidence. Even if it inculpates the accused then also the statement in so far as it relates to discovery of a fact is admissible. In case the statement made while in custody comprises both a confession as well as of statement leading to recovery of certain material evidence then that part of the statement which is a confession remains totally inadmissible in evidence and what is admissible is only that portion of the statement leading to discovery of evidence. To give an example, if an accused states that he shot the deceased with a revolver and after shooting the deceased he has hidden the revolver at a particular place, the portion of the statement that he shot his wife is inadmissible in evidence but if at the instance of the accused the revolver is recovered, that portion of the statement leading to discovery of the revolver is admissible. If the prosecution proves that the bullet fired from that revolver had killed the deceased, then the evidence can be used against the accused.” 21. In State of UP Vs. Sunil, reported in AIR 2017 SC 2150 , the Apex Court at para 14 held: “14. It has also been the observation of this Court in Musheer Khan Vs. If the prosecution proves that the bullet fired from that revolver had killed the deceased, then the evidence can be used against the accused.” 21. In State of UP Vs. Sunil, reported in AIR 2017 SC 2150 , the Apex Court at para 14 held: “14. It has also been the observation of this Court in Musheer Khan Vs. State of MP, (2010) 2 SCC 748 apropos the admissibility of evidence in a case solely based upon circumstantial evidence that – “55. Section 27 starts with the word “provided”. Therefore, it is a proviso by way of an exception to Section 25 and 26 of the evidence Act. If the facts deposed under Section 27 are not voluntary, then it will not be admissible and will be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (See State of Punjab Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 ). 56. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. King Emperor, 1946 SCC Online 47 held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not artistically worded but it provides an exception to the prohibition imposed under the preceding sections. However, the extent of discovery admissible pursuant to the facts deposed by the accused depends only to the nature of the facts discovered to which the information precisely relates. 57. The limited nature of admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 can be illustrated by the following example: Suppose a person accused of murder deposes to the police officer a fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, but as a result of such discovery no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the said weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused. 58. So the objection of the defence counsel to the discovery made by the prosecution in this case cannot be sustained. But the discovery by itself does not help the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on A-4 and A-5 by the High Court.”” 22. Applying these principles to the present case, we may now examine the statements of the witnesses as discussed above. 23. But the discovery by itself does not help the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on A-4 and A-5 by the High Court.”” 22. Applying these principles to the present case, we may now examine the statements of the witnesses as discussed above. 23. After perusal of the evidence on record, we find that PW 6 has stated as quoted below: “After 5/6 days Amrit was taken to my house under arrest by the police at around 8/9 a.m. morning. At that time myself, Priyalal Das, Mintu Ch. Shil, Shibu Ch. Shil, Nirmal Biswas, Sankar Bhowmik etc. were also present while police came with Amrit. Some other persons were also present there. In my house, Darogababu asked Amrit to divulge the real truth what has happened on that night. Initially, Amrit kept quiet but as Daragoababu repeatedly asked him to which Amrit stated in our presence that his brother Ajit was not in the habit of listening him and was disobedient. So on the night of incident while Ajit was in his kitchen and was taking his meal Amrit struck blow with a dao in his neck. He also told that hearing sound while Ajit’s wife came out Amrit struck another blow in her neck in the courtyard. At this, Malina came out in the courtyard when Amrit struck blow in the neck of his wife. All the three succumbed to the injuries. Amrit also told that he will be able to recover the Dao in the offence he used. At this Darogababu took Amrit to his house along with us. Amrit went along with Darogababu and us in eastern viti hut and brought out the weapon of offence namely the dao from under the cot in the Northern side of the hut inside. In the eastern viti hut Amrit choudhury used to stay. He also brought out the lungi which was in use of the accused at the time of commission of the offence. Amrit told that he concealed those immediately after the occurrence. This is the said Dao which was used in causing murder of the three persons. It was seized by the Darogababu in our present. The dao being identified marked as exhibit MO4. This is the lungi which was also seized. Being identified marked as Exhbiti MO5. Prior arrival of daroga babu we were informed by daroga babu to remain present. This is the said Dao which was used in causing murder of the three persons. It was seized by the Darogababu in our present. The dao being identified marked as exhibit MO4. This is the lungi which was also seized. Being identified marked as Exhbiti MO5. Prior arrival of daroga babu we were informed by daroga babu to remain present. So, we assembled in our house. Thereafter, daroga babu came with Amrit under custody and the subsequent events happened. On the said date darogababu recorded our statement. Cross:- Two police officers and some police personnels came with Amrit. I do not know from where Amrit was brought by Darogababu. I cannot say whether Amrit was tutored by Darogababu or whether there was any torture with Amrit. …….. As there was a gathering inside the hut and I was behind some persons, the Dao was not directly visible till it was brought out by Amrit. Such dao are available almost in all houses of the village. There is no special mark in the dao to identify that it was the said dao brought out by Amrit. There is no signature in the dao. Son and father of Amrit also told that they also heard sound of some persons running away towards west. This not a fact that Amrit make no extra judicial confession before us while in custody of police that he committed murder of the said three persons and that Amrit himself did not brought out the dao and lungi and that Amrit made no confession that Ajit was disobedient and so he killed him and that thereafter he killed Soma and Malina and that Amrit made no confession of concealing the dao and that the said dao and lungi was not seized on the house of Amrit and that being tutored by darogabau I am deposing falsely.” 24. According to us, as far as that portion of the statement which relates to confession made by Amrit Choudhury that he had killed Ajit, soma and Malina by the dao by causing injuries on the persons are concerned, that is inadmissible and hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 25. The evidence of PW7, PW8, Pw9 and PW10 is almost the replica of PW6. 25. The evidence of PW7, PW8, Pw9 and PW10 is almost the replica of PW6. From the arrest memo, it appears that the accused was arrested on 05.08.2004 at 9.00 a.m. and he was taken to the house of PW6 at around 9.30 a.m. The witnesses PWs 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 have stated that they have not made any statement before the IO. All of them have stated that they went to the house of PW6, Har Kumar Biswas being required and at the instruction of the darogababu. The evidence of these witnesses clearly shows that they voluntarily did not gather at the house of PW6. They received prior instructions of Darogababu for their presence at the house of PW6 and only after the said gathering, Darogabau, i.e. the IO brought the accused under his custody at the house of PW6 where the accused-appellant Amrit confessed that he out of anger first killed Ajit, his younger brother and then Ajit’s wife Soma and after that his own wife Malina with the Dao. Most importantly, it is to be noted that PW9 in his examination has deposed that “in the house of Har Kumar, Darogabbu asked Amrit to divulge the facts what he was stated at P.S.” If this statement of PW9 is believed, then, it is clear that after his arrest and before going to the house of PW6 he was taken to the police station. There is no reason to dis-believe this statement of PW9 since PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 have stated that after repeated persuasion the accused made statement of his guilt. Under the circumstances, we find it difficult to hold that the accused made such statement without any pressure or duress. It is also not clear what resisted the IO to produce the accused before a Magistrate to record his statement. 26. In other words, statement made by Amrit in custody that he struck blow with a dao on Ajit’s neck and hearing the sound while Ajit’s wife came out Amrit struck blow in her neck and he also struck blow in the neck of his wife are inadmissible since they do not relate to discovery of the dao in the hut of Amrit. But the part of the evidence that leads to the discovery of the fact that a dao is concealed in the hut of the accused, and if the said dao is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant if we read the object and interpret Section 27 in its stricto sensu. 27. Now it is to be considered that whether prosecution has been able to substantiate circumstance that this is the said dao MO4 which is concealed connected with the commission of offence of committing three murders. 28. On behalf of the State, Mr. B Choudhury, learned PP submits that in the instant case, the ingredients of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act have been followed by the Investigating Officer and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 29. In Rammi @ Rameswar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1999 SC 3544 , the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been analysed in great detail and it was held as follows: “True, such information is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but admissibility alone would not render the evidence, pertaining to the above information, reliable. While testing the reliability of such evidence the Court has to see whether it was voluntarily stated by the accused.” 30. From the statements of PWs 6-10, it is apparent that all of them were required by the police to remain present in the house of PW6, giving us the hint that the police was in the know about the statement that he would make before those witnesses. In other words, it could be interpreted that Amrit Choudhury was asked to confess such statement before them while he was in custody of the police. It has come out from the depositions of PWs 6 -10 that on being persuaded repeatedly Amrit Choudhury made those statements before them confessing his involvement in the offence as stated above, meaning thereby, that Amrit did not make the statement voluntarily. Another aspect of such statement before the witnesses, as stated above, is that the police officials clearly knew that some material would be recovered from the house of accused Amrit. 31. Another aspect of such statement before the witnesses, as stated above, is that the police officials clearly knew that some material would be recovered from the house of accused Amrit. 31. PW15, the IO has categorically stated in his cross-examination that “I did not submit any prayer for recording confessional statement of the accused.” From the evidence of PW15 it is clear that after the incident on the basis of some information he immediately rushed to the house of Amrit Choudhury, i.e. the accused-appellant and on being asked Amrit Choudhury told him that when he was sleeping he woke up on hearing some sound and came out in the courtyard and found two dead bodies and thereafter, he found the dead body of Ajit in the kitchen and that within a few minutes he would be giving a written complaint. 32. Emphasizing on the said statement, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that immediately after the occurrence of the incident, Amrit Choudhury made such statement before the police which was corroborated by his son PW2 as well as by PW5. 33. PW2 also stated in his deposition that his grand-father, i.e. the father of Amrit had seen 2/3 persons running away towards the west. But the Investigating Officer has withheld the father of Amrit from being cited as a prosecution witness. 34. In his examination-in-chief, PW15 has stated that the incident occurred in the intervening night of 26/27.07.2004 and just on the next day, i.e. 28.07.2004 he had recorded the statement of Khokan Choudhury and Roydhan. The house of Khokan Choudhury is next to the house of the accused-appellant. He also recorded the statement of Ranjit and Khalasi on 04.08.2004. He has further stated that after recording the statement of Ranjit and Khalasi a strong suspicion arose in his mind as to the involvement of Amrit Choudhury in the alleged offence and due to that he decided to arrest Amrit Choudhury but most interestingly and surprisingly those witnesses were withheld as they were not cited in the calendar of witnesses by him. The IO also did not feel it necessary to cite Sri Jogendra Choudhury, the father of the appellant, as a witness, who had stated that he had seen 2/3 persons were running away towards the west. The IO also did not feel it necessary to cite Sri Jogendra Choudhury, the father of the appellant, as a witness, who had stated that he had seen 2/3 persons were running away towards the west. Why those persons were not included in the calendar of prosecution witnesses and the reason for withholding the said persons from appearing in the witness box leads us to draw an adverse inference against the IO for his inability to conduct a fair investigation. More so, though the statements of PW5, Ranjit and Khalasi were recorded first but there is no explanation as to why and what prompted the IO not to ask these witnesses to remain present in the house of PW6 and as to why only PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10 were picked up and chosen by the IO to be the witnesses of the statement of the accused-appellant. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically submitted that the very role of the IO is doubtful when there was a specific statement just after the occurrence that the father of the accused-appellant found 2/3 persons running away towards the west, when the father and the son of the accused came out of their hut immediately after the occurrence. 36. We reiterate that Section 27 can only be used when it relates to the discovery of a fact. The manner in which the accused was brought to the house of PW6, it gives an impression to the mind of this court that the accused might have made a similar statement to the police before he made the statement to the witnesses. If that was so, then, the earlier statement should have been recorded by the police and thereafter, on the basis of that statement recorded in the custody of the police, the police could have proceeded with the matter. Here what has happened is that the IO already knew about the place where the Dao used for the offence was kept by the accused. More importantly, all the witnesses, i.e. PWs 6-10 to the recovery were called by the police officials themselves. 37. In Sattatiaya Vs. Here what has happened is that the IO already knew about the place where the Dao used for the offence was kept by the accused. More importantly, all the witnesses, i.e. PWs 6-10 to the recovery were called by the police officials themselves. 37. In Sattatiaya Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 1184 it has been held by the Apex Court: “The next thing which is to be seen is whether the evidence relating to the recovery of clothes of the appellant and the half blade, allegedly used for commission of crime, is credible and could be relied on for proving the charge of culpable homicide against the appellant. In this context, it is important to note that the prosecution did not produce any document containing the recording of statement allegedly made by the appellant expressing his desire to facilitate recovery of the clothes and half blade. The prosecution case that the accused volunteered to give information and took the police for recovery of the clothes, half blade and purchase of handkerchief is highly suspect.” 38. From the cross-examination of PW15, it has also been revealed that the police used police dog on the following day but could not detect anything. The dog moved towards various sides but could not detect the criminals. Here also, in our opinion, if Amrit had any link with the murders, then the police dog could easily have identified him considering the fact that after the incident the accused-appellant Amrit was all along within his house. 39. In the case in hand, PW15 the IO has categorically stated that the accused Amrit Choudhury made no extra judicial confession elsewhere besides this statement made by him in presence of PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10 in the house of Harkumar and he has not recorded any separate statement of Amrit. 40. PW6 in his cross-examination has stated that there was gathering inside the hut and he was behind some persons and because of that the Dao was not directly visible till it was brought out by Amrit. He has further stated that such Dao is available in almost all the houses of the village and there is no special mark in the Dao that it was the said Dao brought out by Amrit. 41. He has further stated that such Dao is available in almost all the houses of the village and there is no special mark in the Dao that it was the said Dao brought out by Amrit. 41. PW7 has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say when and who kept the Dao and lungi there and he did not tell darogababu that Amrit brought out the Dao and lungi. He also confirmed that there was no special mark or any signature in the seized Dao to identify. 42. PW9 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not given any separate statement to Darogababu. He has further stated that he has given a detailed statement before the trial court on the date of his deposition. 43. PW10 also has stated that he has not seen from which location of the hut, the dao and lungi were brought out by the accused and he did not make any statement to the police and he made statement for the first time on the date of his deposition before the trial court. 44. In our opinion, there are serious contradictions amongst the statements of these PWs in regard to the recovery of dao and lungi by the accused-appellant Amrit. 45. At this stage, we have given our anxious thought to the examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313 CrPC. To a question put by the Court, he has specifically answered that he did not take out the dao and lungi. To another question, he replied that the dao was of his house but the lungi was not of his house, although, it was taken from the wooden rack of his house. To yet another question, he has answered that he had not seen anything and his son gave him a wakeup call from sleep and then he saw the dead bodies. His father has stated that some people were appeared to be running towards the western side. 46. Another most important aspect necessary to be noted that none of the witnesses have stated during their examination that the articles seized, i.e. Dao and lungi were sealed immediately after the seizure. His father has stated that some people were appeared to be running towards the western side. 46. Another most important aspect necessary to be noted that none of the witnesses have stated during their examination that the articles seized, i.e. Dao and lungi were sealed immediately after the seizure. Empahsising a serious doubt over the seizure of the said Dao and lungi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that after a considerable period of time those articles were sealed before sending the same to the forensic laboratory and by that time many unwanted things could have been happened. 47. In Amarjit Singh @ Babbu Vs. State of Punjab, 1995 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 217, the Apex Court has held: “5. According to the learned counsel though this weapon was seized on 27-6-1990 but was tested by PW 4 only on 28-8-1990 i.e. after about 2 months and there is absolutely no explanation for the delay in testing the weapon. The second infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel is that PW 3 after seizing the weapon never sealed the weapon at the spot. The third infirmity pointed out is that the Sub-Inspector of Police instead of sealing the weapon handed over it to one Chhabra Chunilal who had not been examined and who according to PW 3 used to visit the police station. The fourth infirmity is that Exs. P-2 and P-3 admittedly have not been sent to the armoury.” 48. In the case on hand, from the report of the Sr. Scientific Officer, PW11 dated 17.12.2004 it appears that they received seized articles vide forwarding letter dated 27.08.2004 (Exbt-8 Series) while the incident occurred on 26/27.07.2004 at 0015 hrs and the dao & lungi were seized on 05.08.2004. In his examination-in-chief, he has not stated why he submitted the report to the Director but he said that on the basis of the report the Director prepared his report dated 17.12.2004. The investigating officer has not shown any reason why the device was sent for testing the seized articles after a month. Further, there is no explanation for the delay caused in testing the weapon ‘dao’. The test report was prepared on 17.12.2004. Another serious infirmity, according to us, is that there is no evidence from PW15 that the articles were sealed at the spot. 49. Further, there is no explanation for the delay caused in testing the weapon ‘dao’. The test report was prepared on 17.12.2004. Another serious infirmity, according to us, is that there is no evidence from PW15 that the articles were sealed at the spot. 49. As far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has tried to project that since Ajit was a habitual drunkard, his elder brother Amrit Choudhury, the accused-appellant herein, was unhappy and Ajit also was disobedient to Amrit. 50. We have scanned the entire evidence and we find that none of the prosecution witnesses have been able to cite a single instance of serious quarrel between Ajit and Amrit, rather it has come to light that both Ajit and Amrit were maintaining a very good relation. Moreover, in these days to take food in the common mess is rare, until and unless, there is strong bondage between all the members of the family. 51. In the case in hand, there is no direct evidence as there is no witness who witnessed the commission of the crime. In a case of this nature, the law is well settled that conviction of the accused can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided the chain of circumstances is complete and beyond all reasonable doubt. In case there is any break in the link or if there is any chance of somebody else having committed the offence, then the accused cannot be convicted. 52. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133 , as follows: “51. It is true that the relevant circumstances should not be looked at in a desecrated manner but collectively. Still, this does not absolve the prosecution from proving each relevant fact.” 53. In the decision of Lakhjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1994 Suppl. (1) 173, at para 6, the Apex Court has observed: “6. In a case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt but independent evidence and the circumstances so proved, must form a complete chain without giving room to any other hypotheses and should be consistent with only the guilt of the accused.” 54. (1) 173, at para 6, the Apex Court has observed: “6. In a case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt but independent evidence and the circumstances so proved, must form a complete chain without giving room to any other hypotheses and should be consistent with only the guilt of the accused.” 54. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it could without any hesitation be said that the basic foundation of the prosecution had crumbled down in this case by not connecting the accused-appellant with the incident in question and when basic foundation in a criminal case is so collapsed, the circumstantial evidence becomes inconsequential. 55. In such circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to hold that the judgment of conviction can be founded on the sole stand that recovery of dao (chopper) and lungi have been made. After examining every evidence and materials on record meticulously and in the light of the judgments cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect seized dao (MO-4) and Lungi (MO-5) as well as the occurrence with the accused-appellant herein. 56. Resultantly, the judgment and order dated 24.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Sessions Trial 89 (WT/A) of 2005 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. He is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. 57. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Send down the LCRs.