JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-2-2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, in ST No.04/2019 whereby the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. The trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine. However, acquitted the appellant from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 ¼M½¼ts½ of the IPC. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that a report was made on 8-10-2018 by PW-1 G at Police Station Chhuikhadan stating that on 6-10-2018 his daughter R (since deceased) went to Chhuikhadan college but did not return till late night. Having searched for her she was not found, as such the missing report was lodged by the police station. During search on 18-10-2018 the appellant was arrested. On the basis of doubt and having enquired it was revealed that on 6-10-2018 the appellant took the deceased on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG- 08-F-2433 to Juranadhi Jungle where he committed forceful sexual intercourse and on being insisted by the deceased to end the relation, she was strangulated and her dead body was concealed at the same place. On the basis of memorandum, from the spot the clothes of the deceased, bones, teeth and hairs were seized. After the seizure and identification, the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302 & 201 of the IPC. 3. During the course of trial the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned above. Thus, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of doubt. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned above. Thus, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of doubt. He would further submit that the dead body of the deceased was already in the knowledge of general public and the same was discovered from the open public place and the statement of Kotwar PW-9 Manthir Ram Maithil Kshatriya and Head Constable PW-15 Arvind Sahu would show that there is inconsistency in between recovery of dead body and recording of memorandum. Learned counsel would also submit that the statement of PW-3 Khorbahra Das Janghel would show that the police already knew that the dead body was lying in Jungle, therefore, before memorandum was recorded the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the articles which were seized were at a time. He would submit that how the death has occurred has not been proved by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel the dead body was not identified and the articles which were seized were in general nature and the specific belongings of the deceased were not identified by her father. He would next submit that when the recovery is made from an open place and the chain of recovery is not proved, the appellant cannot be convicted and it would lead to show that he was falsely implicated. Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Aher Raja Khima v State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 , Mani v State of T.N., AIR 2008 SC 1021 and Bijender Alias Mandar v State of Haryana, (2022) 1 SCC 92 to submit that the recovery and chain of circumstances have not been proved and further the accused was not given proper opportunity to explain, therefore, the wrong finding was arrived at by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel would also submit that the entire conviction is based on the presumption and hence no conviction could have been passed on this evidence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel would also submit that the entire conviction is based on the presumption and hence no conviction could have been passed on this evidence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that PW-4 Amir Das Janghel was the memorandum witness. He has categorically proved the memorandum on which the recovery was further proved by PW-5 Sukhiram Janghel, who is witness to memorandum as also seizure. He would submit that statement of PW-5 Sukhiram Janghel would show that recovery was not made from the open place, but it was a forest and the map which is produced by the prosecution would show that place of recovery was jungle, which is not a place where ordinary general public could have travelled or discovered such articles. By referring the statement of PW-8 Dhanlal Joshi, learned counsel would submit that on the basis of disclosure made by the accused they went to the spot at Jungle and accordingly the recovery was made, therefore, the impugned judgment is well merited which do not call for any interference of this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Father of the deceased PW-1 G stated that on 6-10-2018 he left his daughter at 10’O clock at college but till 7.00 pm she did not return, thereafter, he along with villagers enquired whereabouts of the deceased but they could not found her. Thereafter, on the third day, he along with his wife went to police station and made a missing report on 18-10-2018 vide Ex.P/5. Subsequent to that they were continuously enquiring the whereabouts of the deceased. Thereafter, he stated that after 14-15 days the police station Chhuikhadan called him and asked to reach along with 8- 10 people. On this he went to police station along with Khorbahar, Amirdas, Sukhiram, Dhanlal, Rohit, Krishna Kosre and others. The Investigating Officer asked him as to whether he knows the accused, on which he said that the accused is a villager. Thereafter, the police enquired from the accused with respect to whereabouts of the deceased wherein he disclosed that he has taken the deceased to Juranadhi Jungle and killed her. Thereafter, the police asked the accused to take them there. Thereafter, the police enquired from the accused with respect to whereabouts of the deceased wherein he disclosed that he has taken the deceased to Juranadhi Jungle and killed her. Thereafter, the police asked the accused to take them there. The police and other people went there and asked the accused to show the place of incident. The accused showed the place of incident wherein at different places clothes, bones, teeth, hairs were found, which were foul smelling. The accused disclosed that after committing murder, the dead body was covered by leaves in the forest. Accused further stated that he has killed the deceased by throttling. There from at a distance of 1 km. the bag, copy, cycle key were recovered. He also disclosed that he took the deceased to Juranadhi Jungle; committed forceful sexual intercourse and thereafter killed her. From the spot underwear of the deceased was also recovered. 8. Ex.P/4 is the recovery ¼cjkenxh½ panchnama. Reading of the same would show that the dead body appeared to have been hidden at forest. The dead body was also decomposed wherein the hairs and sandal were recovered. Just from 8 steps away, orange colour salwar, brown colour underwear and one sandal of the deceased were recovered. Further at a distance of 25 steps, blue colour kurti and at a distance of 60 steps, bones were recovered. The articles i.e. blue kurti and orange salwar were identified by the father of the deceased to say on the date of incident deceased was wearing it. Identification panchnama is Ex.P/3. Reading of it would show that blue kurti & orange salwar were identified by the father of the deceased but the dead body since had completely decomposed could not be identified by hairs & bones. Spot panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Nazri naksha is Ex.P/1. From these documents, it is manifest that at different places the body parts and clothes of the deceased were recovered. 9. Beside the main road, which is at a distance, the bag, books, copy and key of the cycles of the deceased were found. Memorandum of the accused is marked as Ex.P/8, which is proved by PW-3 Khorbahra Das Janghel. From these documents, it is manifest that at different places the body parts and clothes of the deceased were recovered. 9. Beside the main road, which is at a distance, the bag, books, copy and key of the cycles of the deceased were found. Memorandum of the accused is marked as Ex.P/8, which is proved by PW-3 Khorbahra Das Janghel. Para 3 of the statement of PW-3 Khorbahra Das Janghel would show that when the enquiry was made by the police in custody, the accused disclosed the fact that he took the deceased from the college and thereafter killed her at Juranadhi Jungle. Thereafter, having enquired where the deceased was killed, the accused took the police and other people to the spot. Ex.P/9 is the crime details form, which shows the map. Ex.P/9 is proved by this witness. It shows that the dead body was found at forest, which appears to be an isolated place, away from the main road and presence of many trees are also shown. According to this witness, bones and hairs were recovered at the instance of the accused, which was covered and hidden by leaves. At the instance of the accused, recovery was made and thereafter, panchnama was prepared, which has been stated by PW-3 Khorbahra Das Janghel in the cross-examination. The place of recovery though was open place but was in jungle. The map which is marked shows that thick forest existed at place of recovery. So it is highly improbable that ordinary people would be able to recover the hairs hidden by leaves. 10. PW-4 Amar Das Janghel made the similar statement that after the report was made after 10-12 days the father of the deceased, PW-1 G, came and informed that the police personnel had called them, so he accompanied him to police station wherein the accused was present. Having enquired the fact by the police before them, the accused told that he took the deceased from college to Juranadhi Jungle when she did not hear his advise, he had killed her. After such disclosure, they along with the police went to forest and having enquired about the articles of the deceased, the accused had shown the clothes, bag, copy, key of the cycle, pen, etc. which were at different places. So the witness is witness to the memorandum. After such disclosure, they along with the police went to forest and having enquired about the articles of the deceased, the accused had shown the clothes, bag, copy, key of the cycle, pen, etc. which were at different places. So the witness is witness to the memorandum. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was given that when the enquiry was made by the police about whereabouts of the deceased other people were present but citing them as witness would not be of any help to the accused. He further stated that on the spot certain signatures were done and certain signatures were also done at police station, however, he could not disclose this fact with clarity about the particulars of articles recovered. This fact also would be of no support to the accused to name the article in verbatim when different articles were found and they were eventually identified by the father of the deceased. 11. PW-5 Sukhiram Janghel, who is a memorandum and seizure witness, also stated that the memorandum was made before him. Thereafter, panchnama of the spot was prepared vide Ex.P/2. After recovery, the clothes were identified by the father of the deceased vide Ex.P/3, which he too has signed and the recovery panchnama was proved vide Ex.P/4. He also stated that before him the police has recovered the orange colour salwar, blue colour kurti, bone and hairs of the deceased vide Ex.P/10. He further stated that from the accused, a bag was recovered and in the said bag one orange colour scarf, violet colour scarf, text books of Social Science, Economics, copy, key of cycle were seized vide Ex.P/11. Therefore, the evidence of this witness would show that at the instance of the accused, articles, which belong to the deceased, were recovered. 12. The appellant stated that the recovery of dead body was already made as per the statement of PW-15 Arvind Sahu, Head Constable. But statement of PW-15 Arvind Sahu would show that he admits that after 5-6 days of lodging the missing report, an information was received that certain skeleton of human body was found at Baikatori Jungle. The memorandum of the accused was recorded on 18-10-2018 and the recovery of parts of dead body would show that as per Ex.P/1 the skeleton was found at a distance of 25 mtrs. from the place of incident as shown by the accused. The memorandum of the accused was recorded on 18-10-2018 and the recovery of parts of dead body would show that as per Ex.P/1 the skeleton was found at a distance of 25 mtrs. from the place of incident as shown by the accused. The said place is marked as (5). Whereas the clothes were found at a different place, which is marked as (2), which was at a distance of 12 mtrs. from the place of incident. The place (4) was 105 mtrs. away wherein the hairs and bones of the deceased were found. According to PW-3 Khorbahra Das Janghel, the hairs & bones were concealed under the leaves in the forest. The hairs and bones of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused, which were concealed. The said fact has not been rebutted. The place of recovery was not the place where the normal people would have common access. It was in the forest. Thus, the recovery of articles at the instance of the accused, which were identified by the father of the deceased, connects the chain of circumstances. 13. As per PW-16 Narendra Pujari, Inspector, after recording of memorandum (Ex.P/8) on 18-10-2018, the decomposed dead body was recovered in forest at different places. After such recovery, certain articles were identified by the father of the deceased vide Ex.P/3. Thereafter, the hairs and teeth of the deceased were sent for examination to the Block Medical Officer, Chhuikhadan. The said packets were received by the Medical Officer vide Ex.P/21. Blood samples of the parents of the deceased were taken vide Ex.P/12. As per PW-16 Narendra Pujari the same were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on 17-12-2018. Further the request was also made for DNA test report. 14. DNA report (Ex.P/36) shows that about the blood samples taken from PW-1 G and PW-2 U i.e. father and mother of the deceased, which were marked as ‘C’ & ‘D’ and the bones, which were recovered at the instance of the accused, were marked as ‘A’, it was opined that PW-1 G and PW-2 U are the biological father and mother of the person whose bones were marked as ‘A’. In respect of the hairs, which were marked as ‘B’, the partial DNA profile was received and the DNA matches with the blood samples of parents of the deceased. 15. In respect of the hairs, which were marked as ‘B’, the partial DNA profile was received and the DNA matches with the blood samples of parents of the deceased. 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali and Another v State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640 had an occasion to deal such mental state of fact wherein the Court observed that for application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the recovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. Section 27 of the Evidence Act refers to the 'Fact'. The word 'Fact' has been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which is reproduced hereunder:- “Fact”—“Fact” means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.” 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali (supra) has observed that the discovery of facts under Section 27 information regarding other accused persons, to establish charge of conspiracy, in furtherance of common intention would be admissible. The Supreme Court in such case at paras 16, 17 & 18 has held as under : “16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya V. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 ] and held thus : (Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 , SCC p. 704, paras 125-27) “125. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya V. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 ] and held thus : (Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 , SCC p. 704, paras 125-27) “125. We are of the view that Kottaya case [ AIR 1947 PC 67 ] is an authority for the proposition that “discovery of fact” cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 . Thomas J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) '35 ...The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.' In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [ 1976 1 SCC 828 ], Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression “fact discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case, AIR 1947 PC 67 . The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13) '13...Now it is fairly settled that the expression ‘fact discovered’ includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 ; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962 Supp (2) SCR 830]).” 17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu [ AIR 2000 SC 1691 ] the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus : (SCC pp. 282-83, paras 35-38) “35. 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. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered”. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 37. How did the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 37. How did the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot. 38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.” 18. In Ismail v. Emperor [AIR 1946 Sind 43] it was held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused was found by the police the statement by the accused made to the Police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused was held to be admissible under Section 27 as evidence against the accused.” 17. It would be important to note that when the recovery of the dead body was made under the leaves it was completely decomposed and nobody recognised whether it is the body of male or female. Even the father of the deceased had not recognised that it was the corpse of his daughter. According to the recovery memo of the witness, the body has completely turned into fluid and bones were only present. Only the skeleton and hairs of the deceased were found. It was only in the knowledge of the accused with regard to the fact to whom the said bones & hairs belonged. Since the bones of the deceased were not identified, the same were sent for DNA. Only the skeleton and hairs of the deceased were found. It was only in the knowledge of the accused with regard to the fact to whom the said bones & hairs belonged. Since the bones of the deceased were not identified, the same were sent for DNA. The hairs and bones of the deceased were sent for DNA which eventually confirmed that in respect of the hairs and bones the DNA matches with the blood samples of parents of the deceased. Consequently, when the bones and hairs were recovered without any identification, the DNA report thereof affirmed that it was the daughter of PW-1 G. It is not a case that the dead body prior to the recovery was identified that of a lady and of victim at the instance of the accused. It could not be identified except presence of Salwar & Kurti of the victim. The affirmation of the dead body of the deceased could be made only after the DNA report received. Therefore, the statement made by the accused in the memorandum which led to recovery of the fact that he has killed the deceased and buried her body in the jungle fortifies and corroborates that the accused was only in know of the fact that it was the dead body of the victim and on the basis of hairs and skeleton the DNA could be matched. Therefore, that part of confessional statement would be admissible to complete the chain of circumstances with respect to guilt that of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we are of the view of that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 18. In the result, the instant criminal appeal, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.