JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th November, 1994 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 543 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence committed under Section 302 and has been further sentence to five years for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and both the sentences passed were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the Fard Beyan by one Joseph Vengra, father of the deceased at about 8:30 a.m. on 29.12.1989, reads as under: It has been alleged that the informant’s daughter Subnam Vengra on 28.12.1989 in the morning was playing in the village along with other children. The informant saw his daughter playing at about 11:00 a.m. by the side of the house of his maternal uncle Kamil Balmuchu. The informant at about 12 o’clock searched for his daughter for the purpose of taking meal, she was not found. The informant and his family members became worried and they started making search for Subnam Vengra. On 29.12.1989 at 5:40 a.m., the informant’s maternal uncle came to the informant’s house and told that his two sons Pitar Balmuchu and Prakash Balmuchu were going towards river in the morning at 5:30 a.m., they saw the dead body of Subnam Vengra lying on the way to river and they informed about this to the informant’s uncle and then informant’s uncle came to inform the informant. On this information the informant along with his younger brother Johan Vengra, maternal uncle Kamil Balmuchu went to the place of occurrence and they saw the dead body of Subnam Vengra lying there and they identified the dead body to be of Subnam Vengra. There was blood stain on the deceased’s face, nose and mouth and that those blood stains were looking fresh. There were also blood stains in the eyes and below the eye. Some blood stains were also found on the ground. There were blood stains near the head and leg of the deceased. There was blood stain on the deceased’s face, nose and mouth and that those blood stains were looking fresh. There were also blood stains in the eyes and below the eye. Some blood stains were also found on the ground. There were blood stains near the head and leg of the deceased. There were also blood stains in the finger of both legs and there were also wounds. The deceased Subnam Vengra while playing was wearing red and white coloured bangles in her wrist but they were not found in the wrist of her dead body. The informant with the help of his brother brought the dead body of Subnam to their house. It has been further alleged that while the informant and his family members were making search of Subnam Vengra on 28.12.1989, in the night they also came to the place of occurrence at about 11:00 p.m. but at that time the dead body of Subnam Vengra was not lying there. The informant suspected that his daughter might have been murdered in the second phase of night and her dead body was kept at that place after her murder. The informant claimed that some unknown person enticed away the informant’s daughter while she was playing and thereafter that unknown person committed her murder and he also kept her dead body in the way to canal. The deceased was aged about 9 (nine) years. A case under section 302 I.P.C. was registered against unknown. During the course of investigation and after the post-mortem report it was also detected as to commission of rape upon the deceased so section 376 I.P.C. was also added. During investigation the inquest report was prepared as to the dead body of Subnam Vengra. Seizure list as to blood stained earth was prepared. Another seizure list was also prepared concerning recovery of blood stained full pant of brown colour and blood stained while chadar and also blood stained while coloured Gandra inside the room of the house of accused Prakash Balmuchu. Another seizure list was prepared concerning pieces of bangels in broken condition from the inner room of the house of Smt. Marium Balmuchu, wife of late Almos Balmuchu. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. Another seizure list was prepared concerning pieces of bangels in broken condition from the inner room of the house of Smt. Marium Balmuchu, wife of late Almos Balmuchu. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. Accused Prakash Balmuchu is said to have made extra-judicial confession before the villagers that he enticed away Subnam Vengra, committed rape upon her and thereafter committed her murder and also for disposing her dead body threw it on the way to river. The accused was arrested by the police and was forwarded to judicial remand. The post-mortem report was received. The seized blood stained full pant, Chadar and also two chadars stained with semen and the blood stained earth were sent for examination at F.S.L. Ranchi. After completing all sorts of investigation the investigating officer submitted chargesheet against the accused under section 376/302/201 I.P.C. consequently cognizance of the offence was taken by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. On 14.11.1990 the case was committed to the court of Sessions by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, trial commenced. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the charge levelled against the appellant has examined 10 witnesses as also relying upon the confession made by the appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 leading to recovery and considering the exhibit as also the post-mortem report, the learned trial court has found the charges proved against the appellant and convicted for the offence committed under Sections 376 and 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and imprisonment for life, respectively. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court while convicting the appellant has committed gross irregularity in solely relying upon the so called extra-judicial confession made before the prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, basis upon which the police has recovered the blood stained full pant belonging to the accused and the chadar and other clothes having blood stain as also the red and white broken bangles from the place on being disclosed by the appellant but the said aspect of the matter has not found to be in corroboration by the investigating officer since the investigating officer has not been produced for his examination/cross-examination, as such, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant and hence, on this basis, the prosecution is to vitiate but this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned trial court, as such, the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been contended that the incriminating materials said to have been recovered from the place of disclosure made by the appellant before the P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have not been send for its chemical examination and as such, it cannot be said that the recovery so made of the incriminating material on the basis of confession made by the appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 will attract the ingredient of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It has further been contended that the P.W. 9 has not supported the prosecution case to the extent that he did not see the accused playing with the victim girl in the noon of 28.12.1989. Therefore, contention has been made that the evidence is required to be considered in entirety but the evidences of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory to each other and without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, conviction order has been passed which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, submission has been made that the impugned judgment requires interference and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. As such, submission has been made that the impugned judgment requires interference and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has defended the impugned order of conviction by taking the ground that the conviction is based upon the incriminating material having been recovered on the disclosure being made by the sole appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 basis upon which the incriminating material has been recovered by the police and therefore, the learned trial court after applying the position of law as enumerated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has passed the judgment of conviction, therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. It has been contended that the injury shown to have been caused by the appellant as disclosed by the appellant in his confession so made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 also found in corroboration with the testimony of the doctor wherein the injury shown to have been caused is anti-mortem in nature and the reason for death has been stated due to shock and Asphyxia. The contention has been raised that the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant about the confession so made by the sole appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 cannot be said to be sufficient ingredient to make the provision of Section 27 of the Evident Act applicable. It has, therefore, been submission that since here the incriminating material has been recovered as per the disclosure made by the sole appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 duly been corroborated by the doctor about the cause of death, as such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the judgment of conviction since is based upon the cogent evidence of recovery of the incriminating material on the basis of the confession made by the appellant, therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the judgment of conviction since is based upon the cogent evidence of recovery of the incriminating material on the basis of the confession made by the appellant, therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the testimony of the prosecution witness including the confessional statement made by the sole appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, exhibits and the post-mortem report. 8. This Court, before proceeding to examine the applicability of the ingredient of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, deems it fit and proper to refer certain important facts which has got bearing on the issue. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is required to refer herein, as follows: Joseph Vengra and Mebal Vengra have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively and they have deposed that their deceased daughter, Subnam Vengra, on 28.12.1989 was playing with other children in the village and thereafter she became traceless and they made search of their daughter with others in and around the village. On next morning, i.e., on 29.12.1989, they were informed by P.W. 3 about the dead body of Subnam Vengra lying on the way to canal and thereafter they went to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body of their daughter. They have also found multiple injuries over the dead body. Kamil Balmuchu has been examined as P.W. 3 and has deposed that the accused Prakash Balmuchu is his nephew. He has also deposed that the accused was playing with Subnam Vengra and other children in the morning. He further deposed that Prakash Balmuchu was not found on 29.12.1989 when he was searched for making enquiry about the deceased Subnam Vengra. Jamadar Deogam has been examined as P.W. 4 whose evidence is as to extra-judicial confession of accused Prakash Balmuchu in his presence and others. He has deposed at para-1 that in the evening of 28.12.1989, P.W. 1 informed him about missing of Subnam Vengra. He further deposed that on the next day he came to know that the dead body of Subnam Vengra was found near canal and that anybody ad thrown her dead body after killing her. He has further deposed at para-2 that he went to the place where the dead body was found. He further deposed that on the next day he came to know that the dead body of Subnam Vengra was found near canal and that anybody ad thrown her dead body after killing her. He has further deposed at para-2 that he went to the place where the dead body was found. He has further deposed that the police had come in the village for making enquiry and accused Prakash Balmuchu was arrested. He has also deposed that Prakash Balmuchu had confessed before him that he had firstly committed rape upon Subnam Vengra and thereafter also killed her and thereafter he also threw her dead body near the bank of canal area and after that he spent the night in the house of Darmu Karji, P.W. 8. P.W. 4 has also deposed that the confession made by the accused also led to recovery of blood stained full pant of the accused, blood stained chadar and other incriminating articles and also the bangles of the deceased girl Subnam Vengra. The confessional statement of the accused Prakash Balmuchu has been marked as Ext. 2 upon which there is signature of this witness and another witness Sriram Khandait, P.W. 5. Sriram Kandait has been examined as P.W. 5, who is also a witness to extra-judicial confession of the accused. He has deposed that accused Prakash Balmuchu had confessed before him that he had firstly committed rape upon Subnam Vengra and accused shown the place of occurrence. He is a witness to seizure list of recovery of blood stained Chadar, full pant etc. He is also a witness to the seizure of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. He is also witness to another seizure list as to seizure of broken white and red coloured bangles. John Vengra has been examined as P.W. 6. He has deposed that he went to the place where the dead body of Subnam Vengra, the deceased, was lying and after identification of the deceased he has took the deceased body to the house. Dr. Bisambar Dayal has been examined as P.W. 7 who held post-mortem on 29.12.1989 at 11:45 a.m. upon the dead body of Subnam Vengra aged about 9 years. He has found the injury no.6 ante-mortem in nature by way of laceration and vaginal tear (right lavia megora tear). Dr. Bisambar Dayal has been examined as P.W. 7 who held post-mortem on 29.12.1989 at 11:45 a.m. upon the dead body of Subnam Vengra aged about 9 years. He has found the injury no.6 ante-mortem in nature by way of laceration and vaginal tear (right lavia megora tear). P.W. 7, in his evidence at para-4, has stated that according to the injury found, it may be said that Subnam Vengra has been raped and murdered by throttling. Darmu Karji has been examined as P.W. 8 who has deposed that the accused Prakash Balmuchu in the night of 28.12.1989 stayed in his house and while he was spending night in the his house, the accused Prakash Balmuchu left his house without informing him and that he later came to know that Prakash Balmuchu was not in his house and was involved in the murder of Subnam Vengra and out of fear he had taken shelter in his house. Prakash Balmuchu has been examined as P.W. 9 who has firstly sighted the dead body of Subnam Vengra. He has supported the fact mentioned in the FIR that while he along with his brother Pitar Balmuchu were going to canal in the early morning of 29.12.1989 for taking bath he saw the dead body of Subnam Vengra by the side of the canal and thereafter he informed his father Kamil Balmuchu about the same. However, he had been declared hostile. Samir Paramanik has been examined as P.W. 10 who is a formal witness and he had identified the writing and signature of sub-inspector Surendra Mahto on the fard beyan. 9. It is, thus, evident that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 in explicit terms have referred about the disclosure made by the appellant basis upon which the recovery of blood stained full pant belonging to the accused and the chadar and other clothes having blood stain as also the red and white broken bangles of deceased have been recovered by the police from the place which has been disclosed by the sole appellant in his confession. We have also seen the confessional statement as has been marked as Ext. 2 with objection and found therefrom that the appellant has disclosed about the commission of offence in detail before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. We have also seen the confessional statement as has been marked as Ext. 2 with objection and found therefrom that the appellant has disclosed about the commission of offence in detail before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. It appears from the said confessional statement that he has admitted to have committed rape and when the deceased girl, having the age of 9 years at the time of death, has raised alarm, she was throttled. He has further confessed that after committed her murder, he had started roaming here and there and started thinking where to dispose of the dead body. He, thereafter, at about 8:00 p.m. when the people have slept, has carried the dead body by lifting the same in his hands and by taking advantage of darkness, has thrown it near the field which is adjacent to the canal. He has further disclosed that when he was throttling the girl, she at the time was trying to save her life due to which the bangles which was wore by her in red and white colour, had broken. He has shown the place of occurrence to the police along with other villagers and from there the incriminating materials were found. He has further disclosed that when he was throttling the girl, she at the time was trying to save her life due to which the bangles which was wore by her in red and white colour, had broken. He has shown the place of occurrence to the police along with other villagers and from there the incriminating materials were found. For better appreciation, the said confessional statement is being reproduced as under : fnukad 30-12-89 dks fnu ds djhc 10 cts izdk'k ckyeqpq mQZ dkUMqy ckyeqpq firk Lo0 vyeql ckyeqpq xzke&irkgkrq Fkkuk&eqQfly ¼pkbZcklk½ us gekjs le{k ,oa xzkeh.kksa ds le{k viuk LosPNk ls viuk C;ku fn;s fd fnukad 28-12-89 dks fnu ds djhc 12 cts tc 'kcue dqekjh csaxjk firk tkslQ Hksaxjk ftl dk mez djhc 9 lky dh gS buds vkaxu esa [ksy jgh Fkh mlh oDr bUgksaus 'kcue Hksaxjk dks cgdk dj vius lksus okyh dejk esa ys x;s vkSj 'kcue ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;s ,oa gYyk djus ij 'kcue dk xyk nck fn;s] ftlls mlh oDr mlh txg 'kcue Hksaxjk dh e`R;q gks x;hA rFkk ftl dejk esa cykRdkj fd;s Fks ,oa xyk nkc dj gR;k fd;s Fks] dks gR;k ds ckn cUn dj b/kj m/kj ?kweus yxs vkSj lkspus yxs fd yk'k dks dgk¡ ys tkdj j[k nw¡A fQj jkr ds djhc 8 cts tc vkneh yksx lks x;s rks ftl dejk esa yk'k j[kk gqvk Fkk [kksydj vius nksuksa ck¡g esa mBk fy;k vkSj vU/ksjs esa ys tkdj ugj ds fdukjs ijrh eSnku esa j[k fn;kA ftl dejk esa yM+dh dk xyk nkc jgs Fks ml le; tc NViVk jgh Fkh mlds gkFk esa iguk gqvk yky ,oa mTtyk jax dk dk¡p dh pqM+h VwVdj fxj xbZ FkhA yk'k dks ugj fdukjs eSnku esa j[kus ds ckn /kesZanz djth firk lqjs'k djth xzke&irkgkrq ds ?kj lks x;k FkkA fQj lcsjs N cts vius ?kj vk;k vkSj iqfyl ds Mj ls vius ?kj esa Nqik FkkA izdk'k ckyeqpw ds crkus ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl us gekjs le{k ,oa xzkeh.kksa ds le{k tgk¡ 'kcue dh gR;k fd;k x;k Fkk] ds LFkku dks fn[kk;k tgk¡ ls iqfyl us 'kcue dh gkFk ds yky ,oa mTtyk jax dk VwVk gqvk dk¡p dk pqM+h ,oa [kwu yxk QqyiSaV [kwu yxk pknj [kwu yxk ysnjk cjken fd;kA izdk'k ckyeqpw us ml LFkku dks Hkh eq>s ,oa xzkeh.kksa ys tkdj cryk, tgk¡ 'kcue ds yk'k dks ys tkdj ugj tkus okyh eSnku esa j[kk FkkA izdk'k ckyeqpw us viuk nks"k Lohdkj fd;k gSA izdk'k cyeqpw 30-12-89 teknkj eqUMk xk¡o irkgkrq 30@12@89 Jhjke ---------- 30@12@89 10. The said confessional statement has been made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, as such, it is relevant to refer the testimony of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. It appears that Prakash Balmuchu had confessed before them that he had firstly committed rape upon Subnam Vengra and thereafter also killed her and threw her dead body near the bank of canal area. It further appears from the testimony of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 that on the basis of the confession made by the accused also led to recovery of blood stained full pant of the accused, blood stained chadar and other incriminating articles and also the bangles of the deceased girl Subnam Vengra. 11. It further appears from the testimony of the doctor who has conducted post-mortem about the injuries as also the cause of death due to shock and Asphyxia within 45 hours. The details of the injuries mentioned by the doctor are as follows : (i) Lacerated wound over right big toe; (ii) Lacerated wound over ankle joint aspect; (iii) Multiple lacerated wound over left leg; (iv) Multiple laceration and abrasion over inner part of both thigh; (v) Lacerated wound on both the eyebrow; (vi) Bloody froath from mouth and nostrial discharge; (vii) Lacerated and vaginal tear; (viii) Four nail marks on neck of parallel level. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the issue that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of the confession so made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 basis upon which the incriminating material, i.e., blood stained full pant belonging to the accused and the chadar and other clothes having blood stain as also the red and white broken bangles, have been recovered but according to the appellant, the said confessional statement cannot be said to be admissible since the same has been made before the P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and since the investigating officer has not been examined, therefore, the said confessional statement cannot be said to be the conclusive evidence to prove the culpability of crime by the appellant. 13. 13. It is not in dispute about the settled proposition that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 to 26, which prohibit the proof of a confession made before the police officer while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police “whether it amounts to a confession or not”, which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus, even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under Section 27, it is only that part distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible. For the applicability of Section 27, two conditions are prerequisites, namely, (i) the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact and (ii) the information must “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered. It is now well settled principle of law that the recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence. It is also settled that the Court must disregard the inadmissible part of the statement and take note only that part of his evidence, which distinctly relates to the discovery of the articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. It is further settled proposition of law that discovery of the fact in this connection includes the discovery of an object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to his existence. Reference with respect to the aforesaid settled proposition may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446 (para-7) and Nisar Khan @ Guddu v. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 (9) SCC 386 (para 6 to 8). The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue pertaining to the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, has pronounced a judgment in the case of Mehboob Ali and another v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 (9) JT 512 , wherein it has been held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence, the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. 14. This Court after taking into consideration the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and coming to the facts of the given case it is evident that the disclosure so made by the sole appellant before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 cannot be said to be inadmissible reason being that on the basis of disclosure so made by the sole appellant, the place of occurrence of commission of crime with murder has been identified by recovery of incriminating material. However, the said confessional statement was made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 but as would appear from the aforesaid confessional statement coupled with the testimony of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, it is evident that on the basis of the said confession, the police has searched out the place of occurrence and found therefrom the incriminating articles. Further, the dead body which was found near the field which was adjacent to the canal has also been disclosed by the appellant in his confession from where the blood stained earth was recovered on 30.12.1989 and accordingly, the seizure memo was prepared being marked as Ext.5. Subsequent to the confession made when the incriminating material have been recovered, another seizure memo was prepared being marked as Ext.6. 15. Subsequent to the confession made when the incriminating material have been recovered, another seizure memo was prepared being marked as Ext.6. 15. The question which has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the said confessional statement since made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, therefore, the same cannot be said to be admissible but we are not in agreement with the said contention on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (supra); Nisar Khan @ Guddu v. State of Uttaranchal (supra) and; Mehboob Ali and another v. State of Rajasthan (supra) since the proposition has been laid down therein for the purpose of making applicable the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act that the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact and the information must “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered. Here, in the given facts of the case, confession so made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 led to recovery of incriminating articles, more particularly, bangles of the deceased on 30.12.1989, as such, Section 27 will be held applicable herein for the reason aforesaid. Further the injury sustained by the minor girl found in corroboration with the testimony of the doctor. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken another ground that the investigating officer has not been examined, as such, serious prejudice has been caused and therefore, the entire prosecution version is to vitiate. 17. It is not in dispute that non-examination of investigating officer is of paramount consideration but merely because the investigating officer has not been examined, the entire prosecution will not fail rather it has to be seen on the basis of the facts of the given case as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Behari Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317 , paragraph-23 of the said judgment reads as under : “23. … We may also indicate here that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. … We may also indicate here that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal strait-jacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of Investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial. These appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. The appellants who have been released on bail should be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.” Further in Baharudur Naik vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 153 , paragraph-2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been held as under : “2. The appellant has not been able to shake the credibility of the eyewitnesses. No material contradiction in the case of the prosecution has been shown to us. Under these facts and circumstances, the non-examination of the investigating officer as a witness is of no consequence. It has not been shown what prejudice has been cause to the appellant by such non-examination.” 18. Here, in the given facts of the case that since the incriminating material has been recovered from the place of occurrence as per the disclosure made by the sole appellant, and it is not a case where merely because the investigating officer has not been examined, the prosecution will be vitiated since the confession so made has led to recovery. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant in course of argument has relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.140 of 1994 on the issue that the conviction based upon the extra-judicial confession cannot be said to be proper approach of the Court. 20. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant in course of argument has relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.140 of 1994 on the issue that the conviction based upon the extra-judicial confession cannot be said to be proper approach of the Court. 20. We have considered the aforesaid judgment and found therefrom that the facts of the said case is quite different to that of the fact of the given case since in that case, confession so made as was disclosed by P.W. 7 was reduced in writing but no such document was made available on record but in the instant case, the confession so made before P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 is available on record based upon which the incriminating materials have been recovered and therefore, on the basis of the facts of the given case, the judgment passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.140 of 1994 will not be applicable herein. 21. This Court, after having discussed the factual as also the legal position, has scrutinized the impugned judgment of conviction and found therefrom that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the incriminating articles recovered from the place of occurrence on the basis of the disclosure made by the appellant and the manner by which the offence of murder has been committed, i.e., by throttling, has also been found substantiated by the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem. 22. The learned trial court, therefore, has come to conclusive finding that the culpability of the appellant found to be proved not only on the basis of the confession made rather the said confession has also been found in corroboration with the testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8. 23. The learned trial court since came to conclusive finding about proving of charge beyond all shadow of doubt which according to the considered view of this Court based upon the reasoning hereinbove, cannot be said to suffer from error. As such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 25. 23. The learned trial court since came to conclusive finding about proving of charge beyond all shadow of doubt which according to the considered view of this Court based upon the reasoning hereinbove, cannot be said to suffer from error. As such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 25. This Court, after having passed the order as aforesaid has considered the sentence and found therefrom that the order of sentence to undergo imprisonment of life for the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code suffers from infirmity, reason being that Section 302 provides that along with the sentence of imprisonment for life, the fine is also mandatory to be inflicted as would appear from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- “302. Punishment for murder.-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” 26. The trial Court while imposing the sentence has not considered the mandatory provision as contained under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the order of sentence without inflicting any fine, therefore, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that apart from the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the appellant, is hereby imposed. 27. With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 28. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant, since appellant is enjoying suspension of sentence after the order being passed by this Court directed to release him during pendency of the appeal, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court who would send him in jail to serve out his remaining sentence. 29. Needless to say that if the appellant will not surrender, the trial Court will take endeavours for securing custody of the appellant to serve out his remaining sentence and further secure that he deposit the amount of fine so imposed by this Court. 30. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. I agree.- Subhash Chand, J.