JUDGMENT : SHAMPA SARKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated October 20, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2011 in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2011 sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and with fine of rupees ten thousand in default of payment of fine with rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years. 2. On the basis of a fardbayan of Vasudevan Nair, the PW1, before the police officer on March 09, 2011, Hut Bay Police Station case No. 34 of 2011 dated March 09, 2011 was started against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Investigation was conducted by the concerned police station and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet No. 42/11 dated 23.04.2011 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to face trial in open Court. The prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected and the appellant ultimately faced custody trial. 4. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair and after the cognizance was taken under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Port Blair for trial and disposal. 5. After hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the learned defence counsel and upon perusal of the case records the learned court below framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that on March 08, 2011 at about 08:00 pm at a place near a Nallah (ditch) by the side of paddy field of Tobius Tete in Ongi Tikrey under Hut Bay Police Station the appellant did commit murder intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Linus Indwar and his wife Kripa Bilung and also personally insulted and had given provocation to the victims intending that such provocation would cause the victims to break public peace. The content of the charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. 6. The content of the charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. 6. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to bring home charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code levelled against the accused/appellant. After completion of the evidence the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he declined to adduce any witness in his defence. 7. The defence is one of denial of charge under Section 302 Code of Criminal Procedure which emerges from the trend of the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and so also from the statement made by the accused appellant. 8. Upon hearing the submission of prosecution and defence, the appellant was found guilty of the offence charged with and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after reflection in segregation, giving an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine or Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years by the impugned judgment which is in appeal before us. 9. Now, the point for decision is whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code levelled against the accused appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. 10. While assailing the order of conviction Mr. D Ilango, learned advocate submitted on behalf of the appellant that one Kannan who was the informant to the complaint ought to have been examined. He further submitted that the prosecution case was flawed for non-examination of Amrush, the brother of Kripa Bilung specially, in view of the suggestion that was put by the defence to Rohit (PW5) the son of the deceased that Amrush was responsible for murdering both the deceased due to a family feud arising out of money matters. 11. Mr. Ilango further submitted that there were serious contradictions in the deposition of PW1 and PW10 who were both present during the confessional statement of the accused. His next contention, it was mentioned in the CFSL report that the blood group could not be detected from the murder weapon and the clothes of the deceased. 11. Mr. Ilango further submitted that there were serious contradictions in the deposition of PW1 and PW10 who were both present during the confessional statement of the accused. His next contention, it was mentioned in the CFSL report that the blood group could not be detected from the murder weapon and the clothes of the deceased. According to him, there was no proof that the murder weapon recovered and subsequently seized was actually used to murder the victims. 12. According to Mr. Ilango the conduct of PW6 (Aklu Pahan) and PW5 (Rohit) was not natural and this raised serious doubt on the believability of the prosecution case. According to him although the accused made an extra judicial confession to Aklu Pahan at 09:00 PM on March 08, 2011 that is on the night of the incident yet, Aklu Pahan did not lodge a complaint with the police. Moreover, Rohit PW5 the son of the accused was informed by Aklu Pahan that the appellant was the assailant but he did not lodge the complaint against the accused and on the contrary Vasudevan Nair PW1 made the fardbayan and the case was started against unknown person. According to him, Marianus Kullu was also present with Aklu Pahan during the extra judicial confession of the appellant but was not examined by the prosecution. 13. Lastly Mr. Ilango submitted that the confessional statement was concocted and fabricated and cannot be accepted as evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 being hit by the provision of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He concluded his argument by submitting that the intention of the police was somehow to close the investigation and they falsely implicated the appellant. According to him there was no mention of the name of the appellant before the investigating agency. The statements made to the police officer during interrogation and the records do not indicate the fact that the appellant was the assailant was ever mentioned to the investigating officer during investigation by any of the witnesses. 14. Mr. Ananda Halder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-state submitted that Kannan was not found at the place of occurrence and as such he was not interrogated and therefore, he was not cited as a witness. According to him, the fardbayan was recorded at the place of occurrence when only PW1 was present. 14. Mr. Ananda Halder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-state submitted that Kannan was not found at the place of occurrence and as such he was not interrogated and therefore, he was not cited as a witness. According to him, the fardbayan was recorded at the place of occurrence when only PW1 was present. The police officials came to the spot after 08:30 AM on March 09, 2011 on the basis of the information received from PW1. Thereafter, the fardbayan was recorded at 09:35 AM and the inquest was prepared between 10:15-10:55 hours. According to him, after the fardbayan was recorded, the police official prepared the papers in the police station. He further submitted that the fardbayan was recorded before Rohit (PW5) reached the place of occurrence. From the deposition of Rohit it was clear that the Amrush informed Rohit at 08:00 AM about the incident when Rohit was working at the hotel and thereafter Rohit came to the place of occurrence but the time when Rohit came to the place of occurrence was not mentioned but naturally Rohit reached the place of occurrence after the fardbayan was recorded. He submitted that Aklu Pahan (PW6) also came to the place of occurrence after the fardbayan was recorded and by the time he told Rohit that the accused had owned up to have committed the murder, the FIR had already been drawn. According to Mr. Halder, Marianus could at best be a hearsay witness as the accused did not make any confession before Marianus. His evidence was not at all necessary. With regard to the discrepancies in the statements of PW1 and PW10, he stated that they were minor discrepancies and did not go to the root of the prosecution case. He vehemently argued that the confessional statement of the appellant was corroborated by the evidence of Joga Rao PW10 and PW1 as also by the Inspector of Police Seshnath Singh PW18, SHO, Hut Bay Police Station in his evidence. According to him, the statement of the accused was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter refer as to the said Act of 1872), as the statements were made in presence of PW1 and PW10 as well voluntarily and the statements led to the recovery of the clothes and murder weapon amongst other things. According to him, the statement of the accused was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter refer as to the said Act of 1872), as the statements were made in presence of PW1 and PW10 as well voluntarily and the statements led to the recovery of the clothes and murder weapon amongst other things. The CFSL report proved that there was human blood on the blood stained earth and controlled earth as also on the apparels and the weapon. According to him, the circumstantial evidence and the recovery of the murder weapon and the apparels leading to the disclosure statement is well proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 15. He submitted that the prosecution case had been proved and the judgment impugned to this appeal did not call for any interference. 16. From the contents of the FIR, it appears that the complainant (PW1) was a driver in the Forest Department. He received a call on March 09, 2011 from one Kannan a member of the Hut Bay Panchayat at about 08:30 AM in the morning who informed him that a man and a woman were lying dead in the field of Tobius Tete near the tunnel of Ongi Tikrey. The complainant reached the place of occurrence and saw the deceased person namely Linus Indwar and his wife Kripa Bilung were lying with deep cut wounds at the back of the neck, on the chest and on the back of the shoulder. He recognized the victim Linus Indwar who was an employee of Forest Department. The complainant described the clothes worn by the deceased persons and also stated that as the couple were proceeding to their hut where they nurtured animals in order to sleep at night they might have been murdered with a sharp weapon by some unknown persons near the tunnel. 17. It appears from the oral evidence of PW13, CB Singh Head Constable of the Hut Bay Police Station that on the basis of fardbayan of PW1 he chalked out the formal FIR No. 34 of 2011 dated March 09, 2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Police Station against unknown person. 18. On the basis of the fardbayan of PW1 the concerned police officer registered an FIR and started investigation of the aforementioned case. 18. On the basis of the fardbayan of PW1 the concerned police officer registered an FIR and started investigation of the aforementioned case. It was the PW1 who informed the Hut Bay Police Station and the Station House Officer (SHO) of the police station went with a photographer and other police personnel to the place of occurrence and made an inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased, prepared the site plan and took photographs. Two inquest reports were made one in respect of each of the deceased and the nature of injuries, the physical condition of the deceased and other details were recorded. PW1, PW2 and PW3 signed the inquest report of Linus Indwar and PW1, PW4 and PW5 signed the inquest report of Kripa Bilung. The time of commencement of inquest and the time of completion of the same was between 10:15 hours and 10:55 hours respectively in respect of both the deceased person. With regard to the cause and manner of death, it was recorded that both the deceased died due to profuse bleeding from deep cut injuries inflicted with some sharp weapon. The description of the condition of the deceased in the inquest report have been corroborated by the description in the fardbayan. The signatures of the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence were obtained in both the inquest reports have been marked exhibits and the witnesses were also examined who proved their signatures. 19. It appears from the deposition of PW14 who was the head constable of Hut Bay Police Station that on the basis of an information that two dead bodies were found lying near the nallah in Ongi Tikrey, the Station House Officer went to the place of occurrence with police party including the said witness PW14 and saw the dead body of one male and one female. Thereafter, SI Mohammed Elias came to the place of occurrence with a photographer, took photographs of the bodies. The SHO prepared the site plan, seized the controlled earth, blood stained earth and carry bag, prepared the seizure list and thereafter the bodies were sent to the Hut Bay Primary Health Center mortuary for postmortem examination. 20. Thereafter, SI Mohammed Elias came to the place of occurrence with a photographer, took photographs of the bodies. The SHO prepared the site plan, seized the controlled earth, blood stained earth and carry bag, prepared the seizure list and thereafter the bodies were sent to the Hut Bay Primary Health Center mortuary for postmortem examination. 20. From the reports of postmortem examination marked exhibit 21 and 22, it appears that the postmortem was carried out on March 09, 2011 between 13:30 -14:30 hours in respect of Linus Indwar by Doctor Helen Samuel (PW13) and on March 09, 2011 between 14:30-15:30 hours in respect of Kripa Bilung by the same doctor. 21. It appears from postmortem report that the details of the nature of injuries that have been described find corroboration in the fardbayan and the inquest report. It also appears from the postmortem report that the death was due to spinal shock and massive hemorrhage due to sharp injury of the neck. This finding in the report also find corroboration in the fardbayan and the inquest report. The time, place and manner of assault have been proved from the contents of fardbayan, inquest reports and the postmortem reports. The chain of events have also been completed. 22. It has been held in the decision of Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288 that the locus standi of the complainant was irrelevant and any person could file a complaint irrespective of his motive or prejudice. As such, the first contention of Mr. Ilango that although Aklu Pahan and Rohit were aware of the incident, the very initiation of the investigation was flawed as it was started on a complaint by a stranger against unknown person cannot be accepted. It has been held in the case of Hem RajVs.State of Punjab reported in (2003) 12 SCC 241 that it was sufficient if the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and it was not necessary that all details of occurrence was required to be mentioned. In the instant case, the FIR mentioned the commission of cognizable offence and an investigation on the basis of the same was permissible. 23. It has been held in the decision of Durai Pandi Thevar Vs. In the instant case, the FIR mentioned the commission of cognizable offence and an investigation on the basis of the same was permissible. 23. It has been held in the decision of Durai Pandi Thevar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1973) 3 SCC 680 that even if the information given to the police was based only on a talk in the village without giving the name of accused person and the informant himself was not an eye witness, an FIR could be admissible and it was open to the authorities to take action on the basis of the information. 24. The first information report is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used for corroborating or contradicting the maker when he appears in court as a witness. In the decision of Dharma Rama Bhagare Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 1 SCC 537 , it has been held that the prosecution case could not be thrown out on the mere ground that the FIR was registered against unknown person. Coming to the facts of this case, the contents of the FIR are corroborated by the oral evidence of the PW1. The nature of injuries stated in the FIR find corroboration in the inquest report and also the postmortem report. There is no contradiction in the medical report and the ocular evidence with regard to the nature of the injuries and the position and condition of the bodies of the deceased. 25. With regard to the discrepancy in the statement of PW1 and PW10, as submitted by Mr. Ilango, it appears that those discrepancies are minor. Both of them corroborated each others deposition with regard to the place of occurrence, the position of the bodies of the deceased, nature of the injury, the presence of the seizure witnesses and the witnesses who signed the inquest report, and specially with regard to the disclosure statement made by the accused before the PW18 in the police station finally leading to the recovery of the articles including the murder weapon and consequent seizure of the same under seizure lists in the presence of witnesses. 26. In the decision of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 288 , it has been held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies could not affect the prosecutions case. 26. In the decision of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 288 , it has been held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies could not affect the prosecutions case. The relevant portion is quoted below:- "32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecutions case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witness." 27. A similar view was taken by the Honble Apex Court in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 , the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission." 28. In Rammi alias Rameshwar Vs. State of MP reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649 , it has been reiterated that inconsistency in evidence of a witness was not sufficient to impair and/or impeach the credit of the witness. 29. Similar view was taken by the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. MK Anthony reported in (1985) 1 SCC 505 and in the case of Vijay alias Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191 . 30. In the case in hand minor contradiction in the statement of the two witnesses PW1 and PW10 as to whether they were present together at the Hut Bay Bazar on March 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM or whether Joga Rao (PW10) subsequently went to the police station where Vasudevan Nair (PW1) was already present are minor discrepancies and does not create a dent in the prosecution case as these statements do not have any material bearing on the prosecution case. 31. With regard to the non-examination of Kannan, we do not find any reason to hold Kannan was a vital witness and in the absence of Kannan the prosecution case could not be proved. The examination of Marianus was not essential as from the deposition of the Aklu Pahan (PW6), it was clear that the appellant had called Aklu Pahan aside and had confessed to him about the incident. There is no statement to the effect that Marianus was informed about such confession either by the accused or by the PW6 32. The examination of Marianus was not essential as from the deposition of the Aklu Pahan (PW6), it was clear that the appellant had called Aklu Pahan aside and had confessed to him about the incident. There is no statement to the effect that Marianus was informed about such confession either by the accused or by the PW6 32. The deposition of PW6 Aklu Pahan in the court is corroborated with his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made on April 04, 2011. There was no reason to disbelief Aklu Pahan. No questions to the contrary were put to Aklu Pahan in the cross-examination and the extra judicial confession made to Aklu Pahan is admissible in evidence. 33. As regards non examination of Amrush we find that apart from a suggestion given to Rohit (PW5), which was denied by Rohit, the defence had not seriously built up an argument about Amrush being the assailant who committed the murder being motivated by an enmity due to family feud on money matters. With regard to the contention on behalf of the appellant that no one had mentioned the name of the appellant as the accused person and the investigating agency had falsely implicated the appellant and had forced a confessional statement out of him, we find that no questions or even suggestions to that effect were put in this regard to the police personnel connected with the investigation in the cross-examination and specially to the IO concerned (PW18). We also find from the statement of PW18 that outside the mortuary room he interrogated the witnesses from whom he came to know that the accused was the assailant. There was no cross examination to the contrary by the defence in this regard. 34. We also find that the oral evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW10, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW16, PW17 and PW18 find corroboration in each others version and there are no serious contradictions in their statements. The evidence of these witnesses have not been shaken in the cross examination. Moreover, the motive has been proved by the deposition of PW11 to the effect that there was an enmity between the accused and Linus Indwar because the accused had developed an illicit physical relationship with Kripa Bilung. 35. The evidence of these witnesses have not been shaken in the cross examination. Moreover, the motive has been proved by the deposition of PW11 to the effect that there was an enmity between the accused and Linus Indwar because the accused had developed an illicit physical relationship with Kripa Bilung. 35. It appears from the CFSL report that the controlled earth, the blood stained earth and the apparels contained human blood and the description of the exhibits sent for forensic examination are corroborated from the seizure list prepared after the articles were seized on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused. As the nature of injury in the inquest report, fardbayan, postmortem report and statement of PW15 the medical officer who had conducted the postmortem examination are corroborated, there is enough clinching circumstantial evidence with regard to the nature and manner of assault and the evidence points towards the appellant. Merely because the blood group could not be ascertained from the murder weapon, the prosecution case cannot fail. 36. Now coming to the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement made by the accused in the presence of PW18, PW17, PW1 and PW10, the ingredients of Section 27 of the said Act of 1872 are required to be examined. The provision is quoted herein below:- "27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a 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." 37. The essential ingredients of the section are:- (a) Discovery of fact consequent to an information received from the accused person. (b) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to. (c) The accused must be in police custody, when he has given the information. (d) So much information as relates distinctly to the fact and thereby discovered was admissible. 38. In the instant case the appellant made the confessional statement with regard to the incident, the weapon used and the nature of the assault. He also made a statement as to where the bundle of clothes and the blood stained ballam had been hidden by him. 38. In the instant case the appellant made the confessional statement with regard to the incident, the weapon used and the nature of the assault. He also made a statement as to where the bundle of clothes and the blood stained ballam had been hidden by him. He also stated that he had removed the shirt he was wearing at the time of the incident and had worn another shirt but was wearing the same half pant when he was making the statement. The Station House Officer allowed the accused to lead him to the place, where the murder weapon and other articles were hidden by the accused. Those articles were recovered and seized in the presence of PW1 and PW10. The nature of the articles seized were corroborated. Part of the statement made by the accused was admissible in evidence as such disclosure statement and consequent recovery of offending weapon and other articles find corroboration in the evidence of PW1, PW10, PW17 and PW18. The half pant which the appellant was wearing at the time of making the statement was subsequently seized as per the evidence of the PW17. 39. Perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution case witnesses, the manner in which they deposed before the court and the details stated by them are acceptable and there is no valid reason to disbelieve their statements. From the evidence of the witnesses it is very clearly established that the appellant was the accused and had committed the offence. 40. The decision cited by Mr. Ilango in the case of Mudragada Nagaraju - vs - State of Andhra Pradesh reported in LAWS(APH) 2007 10 5 does not apply as the said decision was delivered on a difference set of facts. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of the sole eye witness, but the statements of the eye witness did not find corroboration with the other circumstantial evidence. 41. It has been decided by the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Sahib Hussain alias sahibjan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 778 that extra judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, could form the basis for conviction if the confessional made by accused was voluntary, true and trustworthy. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:- "15. The prosecution heavily relied on the extra-judicial confession. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 778 that extra judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, could form the basis for conviction if the confessional made by accused was voluntary, true and trustworthy. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:- "15. The prosecution heavily relied on the extra-judicial confession. The extra-judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, can form the basis for conviction if the confession made by the accused is voluntary, true and trustworthy. In other words, if it inspires the confidence, it can be acted upon. We have already noted that the appellant-accused mentioned the details of the incident of Satish (PW4) and the courts below accepted his version as reliable and trustworthy. Ms Archana, learned counsel for the State took us through the entire evidence of Satish (PW4) and on going through the same, we are satisfied that his evidence is reliable, acceptable and inspires our confidence. We have already noted that the evidence of PW4 supports the stand taken by PW1. It is also on record that PW4 was the friend of the appellant-accused and they were residing in the same area. In those circumstances, the confession made by the appellant to PW4 can be acted upon along with other material evidence. 16. Let us consider the recoveries made and relied upon by the prosecution for proving the case. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused was arrested on 28-10-2006, at 10.30a.m. on the basis of his disclosure statement, a bloodstained axe got recovered vide recovery memo, Ext. P-10 and the clothes worn by him, which were concealed in a room, got recovered vide recovery memo, Ext.P-11 in the presence of Mohd. Salim alias Ballu (PW2) and Abdul Majid (PW3). Further, a pair of bloodstained chappal was also seized vide recovery memo, Ext. P-8. On going through the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, both the courts below found that the recoveries are acceptable and concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve their statements." 42. In the case of Arun Bhakta - vs - State of West Bengal reported in LAWS (SC) 2008 12 175 cited by Mr. P-8. On going through the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, both the courts below found that the recoveries are acceptable and concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve their statements." 42. In the case of Arun Bhakta - vs - State of West Bengal reported in LAWS (SC) 2008 12 175 cited by Mr. Ilango, it was held that the circumstances from which as inference as to the guilt of the accused was drawn had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and had to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In the said case the cumulative effect of the circumstances could not negate the presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution failed to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the appellant has been proved are conclusive in nature and all the circumstances are completed and there was no gap left in the chain of evidence. We do not find after evaluating the evidence that there was a possibility of drawing two inferences on the basis of which the inference in favour of the accused should be accepted. 43. Sir Alfred Wills in his book "Wills Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis then that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. 44. In this case the facts have been clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt by oral as also documentary evidence. The prosecution has proved the case on the basis of sequence of events and chain of evidence. 44. In this case the facts have been clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt by oral as also documentary evidence. The prosecution has proved the case on the basis of sequence of events and chain of evidence. The defence has failed to establish any fact which would lead to any inference in favour of the accused. The inculpatory fact in this case is incompatible with the innocence of the accused and there is no reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused. The guilt of the accused has been fully established and the circumstances are conclusive in nature. 45. With regard to the decision of Saithukutty Vs. State of Kerala reported in LAWS (KER) 2012 6 591, the facts of the case are different as the court found that without the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code being imposed a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 46. In the case of Mahaveer @ Liliya Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in LAWS (RAJ) 2014 4 1, the accused was acquitted as the investigation was not up to the mark and the recovery of chappals could not be connected to the offence of murder allegedly committed by the accused and the CFSL report did not contain the blood group of the deceased as the blood group of the deceased was not examined. However, in the instant case the CFSL report stated that human blood was found in the apparels recovered and the murder weapon. Although the group could not be analyzed in the murder weapon, which could be because of the fact that the murder weapon and apparels were hidden under the ground in a bundle by the accused but such omission cannot errode the prosecution case. 47. In the decision of the Selvi and Others Vs. State of Karnatak reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263 cited by Mr. Halder, it has been held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act incorporates the theory of confirmation by subsequent facts that is statements made in the custody were permissible to the extent that they could be proved by subsequent discovery of facts. The contents of the custodial statement could directly lead to subsequent discovery of relevant fact. They are statements which could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed for a successful prosecution. The contents of the custodial statement could directly lead to subsequent discovery of relevant fact. They are statements which could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed for a successful prosecution. The provision permitted the derivative use of custodial statements in the ordinary course of events. 48. In the instant case no compulsion was used in order to extract the confessional statement of the accused appellant and as such in the absence of the defence having been able to prove that the statements were extracted by force or compulsion they were admissible in evidence. The fact that the accused was made to sign the statement was a technical flaw on the part of the investigating agency but that cannot itself diminish the evidentiary value of the statements. 49. In the decision of State of U.P Vs. MK Anthony reported in AIR 1985 SC 48 , it has been held that if the extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of the witness who appeared to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing was brought on record which may tend to indicate that he may have had a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused and further the words spoken by the witness were clear, unambiguous and unmistakably conveyed that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime, after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, if it passed the test, the extra judicial confession could be accepted and could be the basis of a conviction. In the instant case, Aklu Pahan (PW6) has passed the test on the touchstone of credibility and there was nothing on record to show that Aklu Pahan had enmity, ill motive against the accused as such his evidence is admissible with regard to the confession made by the appellant. 50. In the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. David Razario and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 3272 , it has been held that the statements which were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act had to be proved and the opinion formed on it by the police officer was not acceptable. It was held that it was necessary that the information given should be recorded and proved and if not recorded then the exact information must be adduced by evidence. It was held that it was necessary that the information given should be recorded and proved and if not recorded then the exact information must be adduced by evidence. In the case before us the statements were recorded in the presence of independent witnesses. The independent witnesses proceeded to the forest led by the accused to the place where the clothes, sheets and the murder weapon were hidden. The articles were recovered and seized and the entire fact and statement of the accused has been proved by the evidence of PW1, PW10, PW17 and PW18. 51. The prosecution side has established that the appellant had illicit connection with the wife of victim Linus Indwar. Over the said matter there was altercation and quarrel, and on the very subsequent date while the victims were going to the filed at that time the accused person met them and assaulted them severely with a spear. Confessional statement was made by the accused person on the basis of which the offending weapon was recovered. There is strong matching of the injuries on the dead bodies detected in the inquest report with the injuries detected in the postmortem report and the opinion given by the CFSL expert are completing the chain of circumstances and depicting that the accused person Karan Sai the appellant had committed the murder of Linus Indwar and Smt. Kripa Bilung. 52. For the reasons aforesaid, and giving an anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The order of conviction and sentence are upheld with modification that period of pre-detention undergone by the convict/appellant cannot be set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the conviction and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 53. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 54. The lower court record be sent down immediately along with a copy of this judgment for necessary action.