Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 470 (GAU)

Dali Tudu v. State of Assam

2019-04-11

M.R.PATHAK, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Both the appeals from jail are preferred by the appellants, namely, Sri Dali Tudu and Sri Shram Tadu being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 259/2011 arising out of GR Case No. 2001/2011 corresponding to Rangapara Police Station Case No. 204/2011, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months each, for committing the offence of murder and causing death of one Radha Tudu. 2. Heard Mr. Ikbal Hussain Saikia, learned Amicus Curie for the appellants and Mr. Makhan Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Both the appeals are against the same judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2016 and are analogous, wherein the learned counsels for the parties are also same. As such, we decided to hear and dispose of both the appeals together. 4. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the First Information Report dated 17.09.2011 (Exhibit-1) lodged by the informant Mangal Tudu (PW.5) before Rangapara Police Station, stating that around 08:00 a.m. on 11.09.2011, his wife Radha Tudu, informing him, left to her son-in-laws house (Upon Hemron, PW.6). As his wife did not return for many days, on enquiry, he learnt from his son-in-law that she left his house on that day itself. During further search, the informant could come to know that his brother Dali Tudu (aged about 30 years) together with Shram Tudu (aged about 25 years) killed his wife on the bank of Dipota river hacking her with dao around 05:00 p.m. on 11.09.2011 and dumped her dead body in the said river. He along with people came across the dead body that was lying on the bank of said Dipota river. By the said FIR, the informant requested the Officer-in-charge of Rangapara Police Station to investigate the matter and to take necessary action against the accused persons and to do the needful. 5. On receipt of said FIR, Rangapara Police Station Case No. 204/2011 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2001/2011 was registered against the accused persons, the appellants herein. 6. 5. On receipt of said FIR, Rangapara Police Station Case No. 204/2011 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2001/2011 was registered against the accused persons, the appellants herein. 6. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, drawn its sketch map (Exhibit-2), seized one dao (Material Exhibit-1) from the accused duo allegedly used by them in committing crime at Rangapara Police Station in presence of witnesses by preparing Seizure List (Exhibit-3), one CD of Sony CD-R ( Material Ehibit-2) containing the video recording of leading to the discovery by the accused persons of deceased Radha Tudu, seized at Rangapara Police Station from one Utpal Dutta, Videographer by preparing Seizure List (Exhibit-4), conducted the inquest on the dead body on 17.09.2011 and prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit-5), forwarded the dead body of the deceased to Kanak Lata Civil Hospital, Tezpur for its post mortem examination vide challan (Exhibit-6), arrested the accused persons, recorded the statements of the persons who are acquainted with the facts of the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C., including the statements of both the accused Dali Tudu (Exhibit-7) and Shram Tudu (Exhibit-8), obtained the Post Mortem Report of the deceased Radha Tudu dated 18.09.2011 (Exhibit-10) and on completion of the investigation, finding prima-facie evidence, against the appellants/accused persons, filed the Charge Sheet vide No. 104/2011 dated 25.10.2011 (Exhibit-9) against the accused appellants, for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. 7. After receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet of the case and as Section 302 IPC being a Sessions triable case, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur by his order dated 21.12.2011 committed the said G.R. Case No. 2001/2011 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. 8. On receipt of records of said G.R. Case No. 2001/2011, the same was registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 259/2011 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, who by order dated 03.01.2012 made over the same to the learned Additional Session Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur for its disposal. 9. As it was found that the accused appellants being unable to engage any lawyer of their own, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur by his order dated 04.01.2012 appointed an Advocate as Defence Counsel to defend them. 9. As it was found that the accused appellants being unable to engage any lawyer of their own, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur by his order dated 04.01.2012 appointed an Advocate as Defence Counsel to defend them. By his order dated 18.01.2012, said Trial Judge framed the formal charge under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC against the accused appellants for allegedly killing Radha Tudu and the charges were read over & explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial began. 10. In the trial, 8 (eight) witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. After conclusion of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court recorded accused/appellants statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Though, the defence side did not adduce any evidence but they cross examined the prosecution witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, finding the guilt of the accused persons/appellants being proved, they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal. 11. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curie for the appellants submitted that the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution discloses many contradictions and the learned Trial Court on such evidence came to the conclusion that the dead body of the deceased was recovered in consequence of the statements made by the accused persons observing that police did not have any knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence in respect of the dead body, before it was disclosed by the accused persons. Mr. Saikia, also submitted that relying on such evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court held that having regard to the facts involved, there was leading to discovery of the dead body of Radha Tudu, the deceased. 12. Mr. Mr. Saikia, also submitted that relying on such evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court held that having regard to the facts involved, there was leading to discovery of the dead body of Radha Tudu, the deceased. 12. Mr. Saikia, further stated that the learned Trial Court, inspite of contradictory evidence of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that prosecution could prove the recovery of the dead body and the seizure of the weapon used in the offence, which clearly proved involvement of the accused persons in committing the alleged crime involved in the case and on the basis of such leading to discovery of weapon as well as the dead body and the confession of the accused persons, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced against the accused appellants under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and that the appellants are now serving the sentence, though such materials are not admissible in evidence. As such, Mr. Saikia submitted that the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence against the accused appellants should be set aside and quashed, since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused appellants should be set at liberty. 13. Mr. Saikia, learned Amicus Curie also submitted that there was no eye witness to the incident and the prosecution proceeded to prove the case on circumstantial evidence. But, it failed to prove and complete the chain of evidence and for the said reasons also the accused appellants, should be acquitted. 14. However, Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution by adducing evidence could prove the fact discovered, the places from which the dead body was recovered and the dao, weapon used by the accused persons in committing the offence, that was produced by them. 15. Mr. Phukan, further submitted that the prosecution also proved the knowledge of the accused persons which they had with regard to the crime involved in the case, more particularly the recovery of the dead body, the seizure of the weapon used in the crime and their confession, distinctly relate to the fact, which are admissible in evidence and as such, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment rightly convicted and sentenced the accused persons of the case fully establishing their involvement in the commission of the murder of the deceased. Therefore, Mr. Therefore, Mr. Phukan submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not call for any interference. 16. To begin with, let us briefly observe the evidence tendered by the prosecution in the case. 17. PW.8 Dr. Rupam Pegu, the autopsy doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Radha Tudu on 18.09.2011, during his evidence-in- chief deposed that on his examination, he found that the deceased, a female of 40 years, in decomposed state, with foul smell and presence of Maggots all over her body with the following injuries: (i) Sharp cut injury of the neck with complete transaction of the neck including vessels and vertebra and the head was separated from the body except intact of small part of skin over back. (ii) Sharp cut injury over abdomen vertically with visible intestine. PW.8, said autopsy doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and as a result of injuries sustained by her. He also proved the post mortem examination report of the deceased (Exhibit-10), which discloses that the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante mortem in nature. During his cross examination by defence, PW.8 stated that the death of the deceased might have been caused about 72 hours prior to her post mortem examination. 18. By adducing the evidence of the autopsy doctor PW.8 and the post mortem examination report of the deceased (Exhibit-10), the prosecution could prove that the injuries sustained by the deceased Radha Tudu were ante mortem in nature and she died due to hemorrhage and as a result of injuries sustained by her. 19. Now the question is as to whether the learned Sessions Judge had rightly and legally come to the finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the appellants are the author of the crime and whether the accused persons intended to cause the injury on the deceased? 20. PW.1, Shyam Besra, identified both the accused in dock and deposed that from the people of neighbouring Bodo village, it was learnt that deceased Radha Tudu was killed and then it was gathered that it is the accused persons who had killed her. He also deposed that the accused persons confessed their guilt before them and thereafter, both the accused persons were handed over to police. He also deposed that the accused persons confessed their guilt before them and thereafter, both the accused persons were handed over to police. He further stated that the incident occurred in the Dipota river. During his cross-examination said PW.1 stated that the accused persons, the deceased and he himself are from the same village and their village is near to the river Dipota and the 24 Saoutal families of their village earns their livelihood by fishing in the said river. He stated that he does not know the names of those Bodo women nor he met them and they neither told him about the said incident nor he had seen the dead body. During his cross, PW.1 denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not confess before them and stated that the accused Dali Tudu was asked about the incident, a day prior to the date when he was handed over to police. He stated that at the time of confession made by accused Dali Tudu, villagers including Mangal Tudu, John Hemrong, Dugu Kisko and 24 other persons were present. He went on saying that the accused persons were called to the house of the village Headman Marang Hembrem. PW.1 stated that it is not correct that no altercation took place (with the accused persons) in their presence and also stated that the accused persons admitted that they hacked the deceased and excepting the same, as nothing was asked, those accused persons did not state anything else. He also stated that the villagers did not assault the accused persons and stated that as they confessed their guilt, they were not assaulted. He also reiterated that both the accused persons were called as some Bodo women stated about the involvement of the accused persons in the case and the dead body was recovered by cowherd and thereafter, everyone came to know of the same. He denied the suggestion that the incident was not heard from Bodo women and also denied that on their compulsion, the accused persons confessed their guilt. 21. PW.2, Birju Murmu, identified both the accused persons and deposed before the learned Trial Judge that Radha (the deceased) was not seen for about 3 days and it was Mangal Tudu, who told him that his wife (Radha) was killed by the accused persons, which he heard from some Bodo women. 21. PW.2, Birju Murmu, identified both the accused persons and deposed before the learned Trial Judge that Radha (the deceased) was not seen for about 3 days and it was Mangal Tudu, who told him that his wife (Radha) was killed by the accused persons, which he heard from some Bodo women. It was stated by said PW.2 that thereafter the accused persons were caught and were handed over to police. He also stated that the deceased was found on the bank of Dipota river and when the accused persons were asked about the dead body, they told that it was near the Dipota River and then police brought the dead body. During his cross examination said PW.2 stated that he personally did not hear anything from the Bodo women nor he discussed about it with the accused persons and that he did not even hear what the accused persons had stated. Said PW.2 in his cross also stated that from their house some person straight away went to the bank of the river, where other villagers were present and the accused persons admitted before them that they killed the deceased Radha when she went to the house of her son-in-law. Said PW.2 also stated that they came to know that deceased was killed, while she was returning home and he denied the suggestion that because of suspicion the accused persons were handed over to police and he reiterated that those accused admitted their guilt when they were handed over to police. 22. PW.3, Dugu Kisko, the village Headman of Dipota village stated that the informant Mangal Tudu told him that his wife Radha Tudu went to visit her friends house but did not return and then he called a meeting in the village to discuss the matter, in which the accused persons were also present and in the said meeting, in presence of local people, the accused persons confessed that they had killed Radha Tudu. After such confession made by the accused persons and being led by them, the dead body of Radha Tudu could be found on the bank of Dipota river, wherein he saw cut injuries on the neck of Radha. He also deposed that then the accused persons were apprehended by him along with others and took them to Rangapara Police Station. After such confession made by the accused persons and being led by them, the dead body of Radha Tudu could be found on the bank of Dipota river, wherein he saw cut injuries on the neck of Radha. He also deposed that then the accused persons were apprehended by him along with others and took them to Rangapara Police Station. During his cross examination said PW.3 stated that he called the meeting in the village that was attended by many villagers. He also stated that accused Dali Tudu is the brother of the informant, whereas the accused Shram Tudu is his cousin. He also stated that though the informant and the accused reside in separate houses, but it is in the same campus. Said PW.3 denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not confess about their guilt before them. PW.3 in his cross examination stated that he told the names of Bodo women before police, who saw the incident and also mentioned the names of those two Bodo women as told by the accused. 23. PW.4, John Hemron who identified the accused persons stated that he knew the informant as well as his wife deceased Radha Tudu. He deposed that the deceased went to her son-in-laws house, but she did not return and when the informant asked his son-in-law about his wife’s visit to his house, he answered in negative stating that Radha Tudu did not visit his house and then, the informant reported the matter to the village Headman and other villagers and thereafter, a meeting was called in the village by the village Headman, which was attended by him with his co-villagers. Said PW.4 also deposed that both the accused persons were present in the said meeting and in the said meeting, it was revealed that two Bodo women saw the accused persons killing the deceased and thereafter, the accused persons confessed their guilt before them and led them to Dipota river, where the dead body of Radha was found. He also deposed that he saw cut injuries on the neck of Radha and on apprehending them they were handed over to Rangapara Police Station with the dead body. During his cross examination said PW.4 stated that two Bodo women saw the incident of killing Radha by the accused persons and they informed police about the same as given by the two Bodo women. During his cross examination said PW.4 stated that two Bodo women saw the incident of killing Radha by the accused persons and they informed police about the same as given by the two Bodo women. Said PW.4 in his cross examination stated that he did not witness the incident of killing Radha by the accused person and but denied that the accused persons did not confess before the villagers and also denied the suggestion that the local people forcefully apprehended the accused and handed them over to police. 24.PW.5 Mangal Tudu, the informant identified the accused persons and deposed before the learned Trial Judge that accused Dali Tudu is his younger brother whereas Shram Tudu is his cousin and that his wife Radha Tudu went to the house of his son-in-law Apun Hemron, but she did not return. He also deposed that when he went to the house of his son-in-law and enquired about his wife, he was informed that she did not visit son-in-laws house. Thereafter, said PW.5 informed the matter to the villagers about missing of his wife and then a meeting was held wherein the accused persons were suspected to be involved with the missing of said Radha Tudu, as such, both the accused persons were called in the meeting and on their interrogation, the accused person confessed before public that they had killed said Radha Tudu by inflicting dao blows on her person on the bank of Dipota river and then threw her dead body in the said river. Said PW.5 also deposed that on hearing it, he informed police about the same and on their arrival; they were led by the accused persons and recovered the dead body of his wife from the river. PW.5 also deposed that police recovered a Khukri that was produced by the accused Dali Tudu at Torabeel, in his presence and he is a signatory to the seizure of the same. During his cross examination, said PW.5 stated that he did not see the incident and stated that when the assembled villagers charged the accused persons of committing murder of his wife, they confessed their guilt. He also stated that the dead body was found under water in the Dipota river and he denied the suggestion that the accused persons confessed their guilt out of fear. He also stated that the dead body was found under water in the Dipota river and he denied the suggestion that the accused persons confessed their guilt out of fear. He further stated that the Khukri was found in the said river and that his wife did not had any quarrel with the accused persons. He denied that the dead body was not recovered on being shown by the accused persons. 25. PW.6, Upon Hemron, son-in-law of the informant identified the accused and stated that when his father-in-law came to his house in search of his mother-in-law stating that she came to his house on previous day, he told his father-in-law that she did not come to his house and then they searched for her at various places, but could not find her, for which the village Head man called a meeting, which was attended by the villagers. He deposed that while he was going along the village road, he met two Bodo women of their village, they told him that they had seen Dali Tudu and Shram Tudu murdering Radha Tudu with Khukri near Dipota river, about which he informed the village Headman and thereafter, a meeting was convened by the said village Headman, in which the assembled villagers called the accused persons and when they were asked by the villagers, the accused persons confessed and stated that they had killed Radha with a Khukri near the Dipota River. PW.6 deposed that he along with others informed police about the same and on arrival of police, the accused person led police to the river and on being shown by them, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. During his cross examination, said PW.6 stated that he did not have any acquaintance with those two Bodo women who told him that the accused persons had killed Radha Tudu. He stated that the deceased was known to them and that those two Bodo women told him that after killing the deceased, the accused persons threw her in the river and that whatever those two Bodo ladies told him about the murder of Radha Tudu near Dipota River, he told police about it. PW.6 in his cross examination stated that he did not see as to who caused the death of Radha and denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not involved in causing her death. PW.6 in his cross examination stated that he did not see as to who caused the death of Radha and denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not involved in causing her death. He also denied the suggestion that the accused persons were put under threat and compelled to confess their guilt and also stated that there was no reason to accused person to quarrel with the deceased. 26. PW.7, Hrishikesh Dowerah, Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the case, in his evidence-in-chief deposed that on the basis of the ejahar of PW.5, he registered the Rangapara P.S. Case, visited the place of occurrence on the bank of river Dipota, and investigated the case. He deposed that the accused persons were apprehended by local people, produced them before him and he seized one dao from the accused person, on being shown by him in the police station. He further deposed that during interrogation, the accused persons confessed that on 11.09.2011 in the evening they met Radha Tudu on the bank of Dipota river, had a quarrel with her and then killed her by assaulting with a dao and thereafter threw her into the river. He also deposed that the accused persons led police including him to the place of occurrence, showed them the place where they had committed the offence of murder and thereafter, the police party recovered the dead body from the river, where the inquest was conducted and then it was sent to the Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur and after completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet in the case. 27. Initially, the evidence of said PW.7, Investigating Officer of the case, was recorded by the learned Trial Judge on 17.03.2016 and on said date, his examination was not complete. As such, it was deferred and thereafter, his evidence was recorded on 03.05.2016. This time said PW.7 deposed that the accused Dali Tudu confessed that he along with Shram Tudu had killed Radha Tudu and that they had an altercation with Radha Tudu, who being drunk, rebuked them, due to which they had killed her. As such, it was deferred and thereafter, his evidence was recorded on 03.05.2016. This time said PW.7 deposed that the accused Dali Tudu confessed that he along with Shram Tudu had killed Radha Tudu and that they had an altercation with Radha Tudu, who being drunk, rebuked them, due to which they had killed her. It is also stated by PW.7 that the accused person took the deceased to the Dipota river, accused Shram Tudu caught hold of her and pressed her mouth from backside and the accused Dali Tudu inflicted dao blow on her neck and stomach and then they threw her dead body on the bank of said river. PW.7 also deposed that the accused Dali Tudu led them to the bank of Dipota river and showed them and other witnesses the place where the dead body was lying on wet grassy land on the bank of the river, covered with polythene sheet, which was removed by the accused and showed the dead body, which was identified by the husband of the deceased. PW.7 also deposed that he took videographer Utpal Dutta to record the scene of leading the discovery of deceased Radha Tudu, and stated that he submitted the CD containing the said video recording. He further deposed that the videographer Utapl Dutta made the CD, produced the same before him, which he had produced before the Court on the said date of his examination by the Court. He deposed that M. Ext.2 is the said CD and M. Ext.1 is the dao that had seized from the accused persons on being produced by them in the police station. He also deposed that the accused persons were caught by the villagers and produced before him. He deposed that the CD, produced in the Court, that contains the video recording in respect of leading to the discovery of the dead body, wherein, it can be seen that the accused Dali Tudu led the police to the bank of the river and in the bank of the river said accused showed police the dead body covered with the polythene sheet and on being asked by police, he removed the polythene sheet from where the decomposed body of a women was found and there were mud on her face and cloths and her legs were not covered with cloths. Said I.O. also deposed that local people numbering 10 to 12 witnessed the recovery of said dead body. During his cross examination by the defence, said I.O. admitted that the accused were apprehended by villagers and were brought to the police station and in their confession before the villagers they admitted of murdering Radha Tudu. In his cross examination, said I.O. also stated that in the case diary he did not state that the dead body was covered with a sheet and stated that the accused Shram Tudu did not lead police to the place of occurrence. He also stated that during the investigation he did not find any evidence of animosity between the accused persons and the deceased. He also stated two Bodo women initially informed that they saw the accused persons quarreling with the deceased and they also stated that the accused persons committed the murder of Radah Tudu. He also stated that he did not record the statement of the Videographer and also did not obtain the certificate of authentication from the person who edited the said CD. 28. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 CrPC recorded by the learned Trial Judge denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses made against them and stated that those are false and that they are innocent, not involved with the commission of the alleged offence and refused to adduce any evidence. However, during the hearing on the point of sentence, both the accused persons pleaded for mercy. 29. In the FIR (Exhibit-1) lodged by the informant Mangal Tudu, PW.5 stated that his wife Radha Tudu, on 11.09.2017 left for her son-in-law Upon Hemrons (PW.6) house, and she did not return for many days, on enquiry, he learnt from his said son-in-law that she left his house on that day itself. But in their evidence-in-chief both PWs. 5 and 6, husband of the deceased as well as her son-in-law deposed that the deceased did not visit the house of her son-in-law. PW.2, Birju Murmu, in his examination-in-chief deposed before the Trial Court that the Radha (the deceased) was not seen for about 3 days. Further, from the evidence of PW.3, the village Headman, it is seen that the informant Mangal Tudu (PW.5) told him that his wife Radha Tudu went to visit her friends house, but did not return. PW.2, Birju Murmu, in his examination-in-chief deposed before the Trial Court that the Radha (the deceased) was not seen for about 3 days. Further, from the evidence of PW.3, the village Headman, it is seen that the informant Mangal Tudu (PW.5) told him that his wife Radha Tudu went to visit her friends house, but did not return. PW.7, the Investigating Officer of the case deposed before leaned Trial Judge that the accused persons confessed that in the evening on 11.09.2011, they murdered Radha Tudu on the bank of Dipota river, whereas the Autopsy Doctor, PW.8 who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased on 18.09.2011 during his cross examination stated that the death of the deceased might have been caused about 72 hours prior to her post mortem examination, which means that the murder of said deceased might have been caused on 14th or 15th September, 2011. The body of the deceased was found on 16.11.2011. From such evidence led by the prosecution, it is observed that there are contradictions as to whether the deceased Radha Tudu, wife of Mangal Tudu (PW.5), left for their son-in-laws house on 11.09.2011 or not and whether she left her house after 11.09.2011? 30. PW.6, Upon Hemron, son-in-law during his examination-in-chief deposed that when he met two Bodo women of their village they told him that they had seen that Dali Tudu and Shram Tudu murdered Radha Tudu with Khukri near Dipota river and he informed the same to the village Headman (PW.3) and thereafter, said village Headman convened a meeting, in which the assembled villagers called the accused persons and before them they confessed that they had killed Radha with a Khukri near the Dipota River. On the other hand, the village Headman Duku Kisko PW.3 in his examination-in-chief deposed that the informant Mangal Tudu told him that his wife Radha Tudu who went to visit her friends house did not return and then he called a meeting in the village to discuss the matter, wherein the accused persons, in presence of local people, confessed that they had killed Radha Tudu. PWs. 1 and 2 are co-villagers of PWs. 3, 4 and 5 (informant) and the accused persons. They deposed that accused persons admitted their guilt and they along with other people caught hold of the accused persons and handed them over at the Police Station. PWs. 1 and 2 are co-villagers of PWs. 3, 4 and 5 (informant) and the accused persons. They deposed that accused persons admitted their guilt and they along with other people caught hold of the accused persons and handed them over at the Police Station. But they are totally silent regarding any such meeting called by the village Headman. These evidence led by prosecution demonstrate different and contradictory versions regarding holding of the meeting by the village Headman, in which the accused persons allegedly confessed of committing the crime involved in the case. 31. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates "How much of information received from accused may be proved" and it reads as follows: "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." 32. PWs. 1 and 2 deposed that accused persons were apprehended by local people and they were handed over to police. PWs. 3 and 4 deposed that after making confession, as led by the accused persons they found the dead body of Radha Tudu on the bank of river Dipota with cut injury on her neck and thereafter, they with other person apprehended the accused persons and took them to Rangapara Police Station. PW.7, the Investigating Officer also deposed that the accused persons were apprehended by local people and they were produced in the police station and he seized one dao with wooden handle from their possession on being produced by them in the police station. Said PW.7 also deposed that on interrogation the accused persons confessed/disclosed that they killed the deceased Radha Tudu on 11.09.2011 assaulting her with dao and threw her dead body into the river and they led the police party to the bank of Dipota river, showed the place where they had committed the said offence and the police party recovered the dead body from the river. Said Investigating Officer PW.7 also deposed that the accused persons led them to the bank of Dipota river and showed them and other witnesses the place where the dead body was lying on wet grassy land on the bank of the river, covered with polythene sheet, which was removed by the accused persons and showed them the dead body and that he videographed the scene of leading the discovery of deceased Radha Tudu through videographer Utpal Dutta and also submitted the CD containing the said video recording. During his cross said PW.7 stated that accused Shram Tudu did not led police to the place of recovery. On the other hand, the PWs. 5 and 6, husband and son-in-law of the deceased deposed that after the accused person confessed before public that they had killed said Radha Tudu by inflicting dao blows on her person on the bank of Dipota river and then threw her dead body in the said river, police came on being informed about and then the accused persons led police to the Dipota river, from where police recovered the dead body from the river. PW.5 informant also stated that police also recovered a khukri that was produced by accused Dali Tudu at Torabeel. 33. The prosecution witness PWs. 1 to 6 neither stated about the videography of the scene of leading the discovery of deceased Radha Tudu nor they stated that the dead body was lying on wet grassy land on the bank of the river, covered with polythene sheet, which was removed by the accused persons and showed them the dead body. It is to be noted herein that PW.1 in his cross examination by the defence stated that the dead body was recovered by cowherd and therefrom, everyone came to know about it. Said PW.1 during cross examination also stated that they questioned accused Dali Tudu a day before he was handed over at the Police Station. As such, the evidence led by the prosecution regarding leading to the discovery of deceased Radha Tudu shows sufficient contradiction. We have noticed that prior to any information provided by the accused persons to police during their custody; the dead body was already recovered by cowherd, as such information of the accused persons will not come under said Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We have noticed that prior to any information provided by the accused persons to police during their custody; the dead body was already recovered by cowherd, as such information of the accused persons will not come under said Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the deposition of the Investigating Officer PW.7 reflects elements of falsehood, which makes his evidence unreliable. 34. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for "Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding" and it reads as follows: "A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat for promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would again any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him." 35. We have noticed that the PW.5, informant and husband of the deceased in his cross examination stated that when the assembled villagers charged the accused persons of committing murder of his wife, they confessed their guilt. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that on being called accused persons came to the meeting. Said witness stated that "it is not true that no altercation took place in our presence. They said they had curt." Theses evidence reflects that confession so made by the accused persons were not voluntary and were made under pressure and compulsion. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the confession of the accused persons before local villagers admitting their guilt of murdering Radha Tudu cannot be considered in evidence. Moreover, Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act provides that any confession to police officer by an accused or any confession by accused while in custody of police is not to be proved against him. 36. It is also observed by us that PW.6 son-in-law deposed that while he was going along the village road, he met two Bodo women of their village and they told him that they had seen Dali Tudu and Shram Tudu murdered Radha Tudu with khukri near Dipota river. 36. It is also observed by us that PW.6 son-in-law deposed that while he was going along the village road, he met two Bodo women of their village and they told him that they had seen Dali Tudu and Shram Tudu murdered Radha Tudu with khukri near Dipota river. Further, the Investigating Officer PW.7 during his cross examination stated that two Bodo women initially informed that the accused persons were found quarreling with said Radha Rudu, the deceased and they also stated that the accused persons murdered her. But those two Bodo women were neither identified by the prosecution nor were they examined by the Investigating Officer or the prosecution, which goes to show that on mere suspicion, the prosecution proceeded against the accused person. We have also noticed that the dao, M.Ext.1, ceased in the case, allegedly used in the crime as weapon of offence, was not sent for FSL for necessary examination to ascertain its use in the crime involved in the case. 37. In the cases in hand, there was no ocular witness to the incident and the prosecution tried to establish its case on circumstantial evidence and on the basis of leading to discovery of weapon as well as the dead body and the confession of the accused persons. In our above discussion, we have already discarded prosecutions story regarding leading to discovery of weapon and the dead body as well as the confession of the accused persons. With regard to circumstantial evidence, the principle of law is well settled that in cases where the evidence is purely on circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and must unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. 38. 38. In a criminal case, it is settled that Court should go for strict proof of evidence on the face of which the accused can be connected with the offence like murder and when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied by the prosecution has to be fully established with the chain of events which can connect the accused with the crime, which if happen to be broken in any way, then there will be no option before the Court, except to come into a reasonable conclusion with the innocence of the accused. In the present case, though, the dao was placed as a material exhibit, but prosecution failed to show and establish by any other evidence that it was the same dao that was used in the commission of the offence of hacking the deceased Radha Tudu by the accused appellants. 39. From the discussion made herein above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against of the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and that they are the author of the crime. We found that the Trial court was not justified in convicting the accused appellants, since the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete. Therefore, both the appeals are allowed. 40. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused appellants dated 22.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 259/2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellants Sri Dali Tudu and Sri Shram Tadu are acquitted from the charge levelled against them and it is directed that they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 41. Before parting with the case, we acknowledge the assistance rendered by the leaned Amicus Curiae of this case, Mr. I.H. Saikia as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. The Gauhati High Legal Services Authority, Guwahati is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Ikbal Hussain Saikia towards his remuneration. 42. Registry shall return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this Judgment. Registry shall provide two copies of this Judgment, free of costs, to the appellants named above through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sonitpur, Tezpur forthwith.