JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Keshri, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 1.2.2008 and order of sentence dated 5.2.2008, passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T. Case No. 67 of 2006, by which, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(f), 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life for the offence under Section 376(f) of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo RI for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC as well as sentenced to undergo RI for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC with further direction that all the sentences will run concurrently. 3. The First Information Report was instituted by Dular Mahli (PW-2), in which, it was stated that the appellant was the nephew of the informant and he was on visiting terms in the house of the informant. It has been alleged that on 18.1.2006, appellant had taken away the deceased with the permission of her guardian.However, she did not return in the night and when the appellant was asked about the whereabouts of the deceased, he had stated that he on the relevant night itself had left her. Subsequently, fardbeyan was recorded against the appellant, which led to institution of Kamdara P.S. Case No. 5 of 2006. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge was framed under Sections 363, 376(f), 302 and 201 of the IPC and trial proceeded. In course of trial, prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial court vide judgment dated 1.2.2008 had convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 376(f), 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 4. Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that there are discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses and most of the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, are related to the deceased. It has been stated that the post mortem report indicates that the death was caused within 24-48 hours from the time autopsy was conducted. Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that there are discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses and most of the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, are related to the deceased. It has been stated that the post mortem report indicates that the death was caused within 24-48 hours from the time autopsy was conducted. It would belie the prosecution case that the incident of rape and murder committed upon the deceased was on 18.1.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that investigating officer is said to have purportedly recovered the bangle of the deceased from the second place of occurrence but the same was not produced nor it was proved that the bangle was belonging to the deceased. Learned counsel thus submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Ram Narain versus The State of Punjab , (1975) AIR SC 1727 and Indra Dalal versus State of Haryana , (2015) 11 SCC 31 . 6. Mr. S.K. Keshri, learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has submitted that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 have consistently stated that the appellant had taken away the deceased from her house. It has been stated that so far as PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are concerned, they were present, when the confessional statement was made by the appellant, which led to recovery of the dead body from the well. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that merely because the post mortem, which was conducted on 23.1.2006, contains the opinion of the Doctor that the death was caused 24-48 hours ago, the same would not have of any significance in view of the fact that the deceased was enticed away by the appellant on 18.1.2006 and she was recovered on the confession of the appellant on 23.1.2006 and during the intervening period, nothing has been suggested by the defence or it has come in the evidence that she was done to death prior to 20.1.2006 and after 18.1.2006. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that there being evidence on record as against this appellant, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that there being evidence on record as against this appellant, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1, Parvati Kumari, who is the sister of the deceased, has stated that on the relevant night, she along with her other sisters were studying, when the appellant had come and had taken away her younger sister Taramuni Kumari. She has further stated that on next day since her sister did not return, search was conducted. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the appellant is her cousin brother. PW-2, Dular Mahali is the informant and unfortunate father of the deceased. He has stated that it was 8.00 p.m. when his daughters were studying, at which point of time, appellant had come and wanted to take the deceased with him. He has stated that the family members initially resisted, but, ultimately caved in, on the persistent request made by the appellant. He has stated that when the deceased did not return, the matter was reported to the panchayat. Subsequently, the case was registered and after two days, appellant was arrested. Appellant had confessed his guilt and the dead body of his daughter was recovered from the well, meant for irrigation purpose. He has further stated that dead body of his daughter was tied with a bolder. PW-3, Munna Mahli, has stated that appellant had confessed in his presence about committing rape and murder of the deceased, Taramuni Kumari. Evidence of PW-3 has been supported by the evidence of PW-5, Jatru Mahli, who has also stated on similar terms to what has been stated by PW-3. PW-4, Smt. Nanhaki Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that on the date of alleged occurrence, appellant had taken away the deceased. She has stated that appellant has confessed in her presence about committing rape and murder of the deceased. PW-6, Silbirus Kiro @ Kindo, has also stated that the appellant has confessed before him about committing offence of rape and murder. He is the witness of inquest report and was present when the dead body was recovered from the well. PW-7, Matlu Mahli, is also a witness to the inquest report. PW-8, Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He is the witness of inquest report and was present when the dead body was recovered from the well. PW-7, Matlu Mahli, is also a witness to the inquest report. PW-8, Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. This witness, on examination, had found mark of strangulation present on both side of neck as well as in front of the neck. On dissection, he found 4th and 5th tracheal rings broken. He also found multiple abrasion on both thighs as well as on the posterior theorisic region. On further examination, he found that the valva was swollen and hymen was torn and semen was present inside the vagina. Presence of dead sperms were confirmed under the microscope. Cause of death was opined by this witness to be strangulation, leading to asphyxia following rape and the time elapsed since death between 24-48 hours. PW-9, Ramlala Paswan, is the Investigating Officer. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses in course of investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and had also recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, leading to recovery of broken piece of bangles from the second place of occurrence and dead body of the deceased from the well. After obtaining the post mortem report and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by this witness. 8. On consideration of the evidence on record, it appears that several witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 have consistently stated about the appellant coming to the house of the informant, PW-2 and thereafter taking away the victim, 6- year old child of the informant, with him. Since the victim did not return during the night, search was conducted and the appellant was also confronted by the informant, at which, he had disclosed that he had left her in the house of the informant. Since the informant suspected some foul play and after repeated search being made for detecting the whereabouts of his daughter, he instituted an FIR on 22.1.2006 against the appellant. The appellant was subsequently arrested by the police and on his confession, dead body of Taramuni Kumari was recovered inside the well tied with a bolder. Since the informant suspected some foul play and after repeated search being made for detecting the whereabouts of his daughter, he instituted an FIR on 22.1.2006 against the appellant. The appellant was subsequently arrested by the police and on his confession, dead body of Taramuni Kumari was recovered inside the well tied with a bolder. Although learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the veracity of the confession given by the appellant, but, since the said confessional statement led to recovery of dead body of Taramuni Kumari, same assumes considerable significance and is one of the most vital piece of evidence, which led to conviction of the appellant. The Investigating Officer, in course of investigation, had also recovered broken bangles from the second place of occurrence. Defence has not been able to contradict or counter the evidence of prosecution with respect to deceased having been last seen with the appellant, when he had taken away her on 18.1.2006 from her house. The evidence of the witnesses as well as the post mortem report reveals about the brutal act committed while subjecting the child, aged about 6-year, to sexual assault and thereafter strangulating her to avoid detection. Such brutal act on the part of the appellant has admittedly been proved by the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 and the ocular evidence has also been proved beyond doubt by the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant, while making a challenge to the confessional statement of the appellant, has referred to and relied upon the Indra Dalal''s case . In the case under reference, term ''confessional statement'' has been defined and elaborated, which reads as under: "16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that confessions are extorted by the police officers by practising oppression and torture or even inducement and, therefore, they are unworthy of any credence. The provision absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer. This provision applies even to those confessions which are made to a police officer who may not otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police officer and confession was made in his presence, in whatever capacity, the same becomes inadmissible in evidence. This provision applies even to those confessions which are made to a police officer who may not otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police officer and confession was made in his presence, in whatever capacity, the same becomes inadmissible in evidence. This is the substantive rule of law enshrined under this provision and this strict rule has been reiterated countlessly by this Court as well as the High Courts. 17. The word "confession" has nowhere been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the admission of any incriminating fact, however grave or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in police custody, the confession made by him even to a third person, that is, other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible. 18. In the present case, as pointed out above, not only the confessions were made to a police officer, such confessional statements were made by the appellants after their arrest while they were in police custody. In Bullu Das v. State of Bihar, while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused before a police officer, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 132, para 7) "7. The confessional statement, Ext. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started." 19. Notwithstanding the same, the trial court as well as the High Court had relied upon these confessions on the basis of these statements, coupled with "other connected evidence available on the record", particularly the recovery of the scooter from the old house of accused Indra Dalal and the disclosure/confessional statement (Mark A) made by Jaibir in another case bearing FIR No. 718 dated 30-11-2001 registered under Sections 420/407/463/471/120-B IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, which has been proved by Inspector Ram Avatar (PW 15)." In the case under reference, the vehicle allegedly used in commission of offence was not reasonably connected to the accused. The factual aspect of the case, which has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, is substantially different from the case on hand, as in the present case, the appellant was last seen taking away the deceased from her house and thereafter on 22.1.2006, her dead body was recovered, on the confessional statement of the appellant. Chain of circumstances, from the moment the deceased was taken away by the appellant and ultimate recovery of her dead body from the well, appears to be complete and there is no broken chain, which would create a doubt upon the prosecution case. Learned counsel has also referred to the Ram Narain''s case . The said case has dealt with the inconsistency of the prosecution witnesses with the medical evidence and the same is a fundamental defect in the prosecution case. The aforesaid pronouncement is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the ocular evidence is totally consistent and corroborative to each other. The sister of the deceased, who was also a child and was examined as PW-1, has given a complete version with respect to the appellant taking away the deceased, when the deceased as well as her other sisters were studying. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The sister of the deceased, who was also a child and was examined as PW-1, has given a complete version with respect to the appellant taking away the deceased, when the deceased as well as her other sisters were studying. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance upon the post mortem report that the death was caused within 24-48 hours from the time post mortem was conducted is negated solely on the reason that from 18.1.2006 till recovery of the dead body of the deceased on 22.1.2006, there is no contradiction in evidence, which would suggest that the rape as well as strangulation was committed on 18.1.2006. Defence has failed to elicit any contradiction from the witnesses with respect to the intervening period between 18.1.2006 and 22.1.2006. 9. Considering the circumstances, as enumerated above, which was rightly considered by the learned trial court, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 376(f), 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. There being no reason to acquit the appellant, this appeal fails. Therefore, the same is, hereby, dismissed.