D. Biswas, J.
1. By this common judgment Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 130/1999 are proposed to be disposed of.
2. We have heard Mr. C. R. Dey and Shri J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri D. Saikia, learned Public Prosecutor.
3. An information in writing was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station by Md. Badrul Ali, P.W. 3 to the effect that Md. Rahul Islam, since deceased, was missing from 24-1-1991. This information was filed on 5-2-1991. On the following day i.e. on 6-2-1991, an ejahar was filed before the said Police Officer by P.W. 3 informing that they came to know from some people that accused Md. Taijuddin Ahmed and Md. Mohibur Rahman along with some other persons killed Md. Rahul Islam with knife and buried the body in an unknown place in Malopara Village in the morning hours on 25-1-1991. The police, on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against Md. Taijuddin Ahmed, Md. Mohibur Rahman and five other persons under Section 302/ 201/34 IPC for causing death of Md. Rahul Islam and concealing the dead body.
4. On commitment, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against all the seven persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. After conclusion of trial and before delivery of judgment, the appellant Taijuddin Ahmed absconded. The learned Sessions Judge declared him as absconder and pronounced the judgment against others convicting Md. Mohibur Rahman under Section 302 and 201/34 IPC. By the same Judgment the other accused persons namely, Isan Ali, Mahim Ali, Sainur Ali, Pahlan Ali and Garo Ali were acquitted for want of evidence. On appeal by Md. Mohibur Rahman, this Court directed the arrest of Md. Taijuddin Ahmed and, accordingly, he was arrested and produced before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge completed all formalities and on conviction under Section 302 IPC, sentenced Md. Taijuddin Ahmed to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The same sentence was also pronounced in respect of appellant Md. Mohibur Rahman. On the second count under Section 201/34 IPC, both the appellants were sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine, in default, to suffer three months Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved thereby, Md. Taijuddin Ahmed and Md. Mohibur Rahman have preferred the appeals controverting the legality and validity of the Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the successive learned Sessions Judges.
5. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to prove the allegation of murder. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence to bring home the charge against the accused persons. As many as thirteen witnesses have been examined by the prosecution including the Executive Magistrate, the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. Defence did not adduce any evidence. The defence case as emerges from the answers given during the course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of complete denial.
6. Both the Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Learned Sessions Judges convicted the appellants primarily on the ground that they were last seen together on the previous evening of the alleged date of murder and that the dead body of Md. Rahul Islam was recovered at the instance of accused-appellants.
7. In so far as the evidence with regard to last seen together is concerned, according to the Learned Counsel, the only evidence tendered by the prosecution is that of P.W. 6 Smt. Lilima Rajbongshi who is not a wholly reliable witness because of contradictions apparent in her statement made before the Court.
8. In view of the above submission, we may have a look at the evidence of Smt. Lilima Rajbongshi, P.W. 6. Her evidence being brief in volume is reproduced below:-
The deceased Rahul of this case did contract work with me and therefore he is known to me. His elder brother, the complainant, is known to me. The present accused persons are not known to me. The incident took place on 24-2-1991.1 went on the day of occurrence to the chamber of Dr. Chaban because of illness of one of my Cousins and Rahul also came there to take information. The chamber is at a little distance from the Dhomdhoma Bus Stand. At about 5 p.m. Rahul and myself came to Dhomdhoma bus stand. From there the accused Taijuddin arid Mohibur took away Rahul by bus towards Nalbari Town. Thereafter what happened I do not know. Later I came to know that Rahul was murdered. Exhibit 1 (5) is the photograph of the dead body of Rahul.
I married after the death of Rahul. My marriage was held 15 months after the day of occurrence. I did contract work along with Rahul from before my marriage. Rahul & myself were in the Doctor's chamber for about 10/15 minutes on the day of occurrence. I told before the Police that I was in the Doctor's chamber at 7 P.M. and also told that Rahul was also there. Khora Gaon is about 3/6 K.M. away from Doctor's chamber. One has to go by bus. From the bus one is to go on foot about 1 k.m. I told before the police that Rahul was taken forcefully. I can not remember whether Rahul had intention to go. It is not a fact that I do not know anything about the incident.
9. It would appear from her statement that on 24-1-1991 she went to the chamber of Dr. Chaban because of illness of one of her cousins where Rahul, the deceased, also came to take information. The chamber is at a little distance from Dhamdhoma bus stand. At about 5 P.M. Rahul and herself came to Dhomdhoma bus stand from where the appellants took away Rahul by bus towards Nalbari Town. Later on this witness came to know that Rahul was murdered. During the course of cross-examination, it has been elicited that this witness and deceased were in the chamber of the doctor for about 10/15 minutes on that evening. She has admitted a suggestion given to her by the defence that she told the police that she was in the chamber of the Doctor up to 7 P.M. and that Rahul was also there. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that if Rahul was taken away by the appellants at 5 P.M., it was not possible on his part to be in the Doctors Chamber up to 7 P.M. According to them, this shows that the appellants did not take away Rahul from Dhomdhoma bus stand at 5 P.M. as evinced by this witness.
10. We have examined the original case record and the case diary. It appears that this witness told the police that Rahul was taken away after 7 P.M. This shows that the statement of this witness made during the course of examination in chief that Rahul was taken away at 5 P.M. may not be correct. There is undoubtedly discrepancy in her statement about the time of taking away of the deceased. This discrepancy as to the time may occur with a witness examined after lapse of time. It cannot be expected of every witness to exactly, quote the time of a particular occurrence. Such variation is possible and may be permissible specially when it comes from a village woman. Therefore, her statement that Rahul was taken away by the appellants from Dhomdhoma bus stand cannot be rejected outright because of difference in time. There is no evidence of any deep seated enemity between her and the appellants. True, the evidence discloses that she was friendly with deceased Rahul, but that does not mean that she will falsely indict the appellants merely because Rahul was killed. Therefore, despite discrepancy as to the time factor, we find no convincing reason to discard her evidence so far substantive question relating to the taking of the deceased by the appellants is concerned. We are, therefore, not inspired by the argument of the learned counsel that she is not a wholly reliable witness and that her evidence should be rejected. Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected outright for lack of arithmetical perfection. In our opinion, the prosecution version that the deceased was taken away by both the appellants from Dhomdhoma bus-stand on the previous evening of his murder stands proved by this witness.
11. Next comes the question of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused-appellants. Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides 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 confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved in evidence. This section is in fact a proviso to the restrictions put under Sections 25 and 26. This provision is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was proved, and accordingly can be safely allowed to as given in evidence. The information must be the cause for discovery of the fact and relate distinctly to the fact discovered. Prior information to the Police Officer by an accused is a pre-condition leading to the discovery.
12. We have the evidence of two official witnesses before us regarding recovery of the dead body. P. W. 11 Shri B. K. Choudhury, the Executive Magistrate, who as per requisition slip, Exhibit-6, went with P.W. 12, Shri Probodh Ch. Sen, the Investigating Officer along with the two appellants to the place from where the dead body was recovered. (It may be mentioned here that the statements allegedly made by the accused prior to discovery and this requisition slip, both have been marked as Exhibit-6). This witness stated that as shown by the said two accused persons, the place was dug from where the severed head of a man was recovered. Similarly, the body was recovered from another place. This witness did not name any of the accused persons nor did he identify any of them by name while deposing before the Court. The callousness displayed by him is apparent. However, his evidence when read with Exhibit-6, the requisition slip, indicates that the dead body of Rahul Islam was recovered at the instance of the accused persons.
13. P.W. 12, Shri Probodh Ch. Sen, the Investigating Officer stated that as shown by Md. Taijuddin AH, the body and the head of Rahul Islam were recovered from two different places in the field of Bhogi-Bil in presence of P.W. 11, the Executive Magistrate. He further deposed that as shown by accused Taizuddin All, the clothes and shoes of the deceased were recovered from beneath the earth in presence of the witnesses vide Exhibit-3, the seizure list. He further deposed that the statement of the accused Md. Taizuddin AH was recorded by him before recovery of the dead body. A reading of the statement marked as Exhibit-6 shows that the statement was in all probability recorded after the recovery of the dead body and the wearing apparels of the deceased. However, during the course of his cross-examination, P.W. 12 also admitted that the statement was recorded after recovery of the dead body. The admission by P.W. 12 and our observation above take away the evidence leading to the discovery out of the purview of Section 27.
14. The statements of P.W. 11 and 12 read together, however, show that the body of the deceased Rahul, his severed head and the wearing apparels were recovered at the instance of accused Md. Taizuddin in presence of co-accused Md. Mohibur Rahman. This piece of evidence relating to leading to the discovery of the dead body as observed above is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A statement made by an accused person while in police custody for the purpose of Section 27 should be clearly and carefully recorded by the concerned Police Officer. This statement should be in first person and as far as possible in actual words of the accused. This requirement of law has not been complied with by the Investigating officer, P.W. 12, either because of ignorance of law or with a view to shield the accused. Our view in this regard is clear. The evidence cannot be entertained under Section 27. Therefore, the decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 911 and Dudh Ram v. The State, 1982 Cri LJ 1656 referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants in order to show that the prosecution version of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused persons cannot be taken into consideration as a fact in issue as provided in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are not being discussed in details.
15. Though the prosecution version about the recovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Taizuddin AH cannot be taken into consideration under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, yet the fact remains that we have before us the evidence of other P.Ws. who have evinced the recovery of the dead body at the instance of accused Taizuddin. P.W. 3. Md. Badrul Ali, the maker of the FIR, stated as follows :-
I lodged the ejahar out of suspicion. On receipt of the ejahar police began to investigate and I was also led to the place of occurrence. On 8-2-1991 police seized the cloth which was used by Rahul from a pool near the house at the instance of accused Taij and Mahibur. Thereafter, the police along with Magistrate Brajen Choudhury took me to the place of occurrence and the dead body of Rahul was recovered from the (sic) near by Bhogia bill as per direction of accused Taij. The dead body of Rahul was recovered with cut injury on the head.
16. Besides P.W. 3, P.W. 5 Abdul Aziz stated as follows :
I know the complainant. The deceased Rahul is cousin by relation. I know Taijuddin and Mohibur only among the accused persons, I was present when the dead body of deceased Rahul was recovered from a 'bill' after arrest of Taijuddin of village Malopara. At that time police and Magistrate were also present amongst others. At first the headless dead body was recovered by the accused Taijuddin from under the hyacinth of the 'bill' and then the head. The hand was recovered by the police from under the hyacinth about 1 1/2 'tar' distance.
17. P.W. 8, Sambhu Basfor, the sweeper, in his evidence stated as follows :-
I had been working at Nalbari P. 3. in the month of February, 1991. At that time, one day I was taken by the officer of the P.S. to a 'bil' for recovery of a dead body. One Magistrate also accompanied with us. The accused Taijuddin pointing in the dock showed us the dead body of the said boy, Rahul. There was hand-cuff in the hands of the accused. Police took photographs of the pit from where the dead body was recovered. The pit was covered with hyacinth and grasses. (Here is an unintelligible sentence-Translator). The head of the dead body was in another place. The accused Taijuddin produced the head. Photograph of the head was taken, Exhibit-8 is that photo. We brought the dead body of Rahul to Nalbari Civil Hospital. As per statement of accused Taijuddin I came to know that it was the dead body of Rahul.
18. The evidence of Shri B. K. Choudhury, the Executive Magistrate clearly indicates that the two persons in handcuff showed the place from where head of a man was dug out and the body was recovered from another place. P.W. 12, the Investigating Officer clearly pinpointed the evidence against Taizuddin as the accused who had shown the place where the dead body was buried. To this extent these two official witnesses have been supported by P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8. This fact of recovery at the instance of accused Taizuddin dominates the gamut of the entire situation. Therefore, the question would naturally arise whether this could be taken as relevant as post-crime conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Section 8 reads as follows :-
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.- Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any act in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
19. It would appear that second paragraph of this section makes relevant the conduct of any person who is a party to a suit or proceeding, whether previous or subsequent. The law is settled that this also applies to a criminal prosecution. Here, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1994 SC 2420 : 1994 Cri LJ 3271. In that case, it has been held that non-recording of disclosure statement and non-examination of public witness as regards to said recovery would be of no consequence. The matter has been dealt with in Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the judgment which, for better appreciation, are quoted below:-
71. The two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence, and (2) he must also be in police custody. In the present case it cannot be disputed that although these essential requirements existed on the date when Gurbachan Singh led PW 59 and others to the hillock where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia but instead of the dead body the articles by which her body was wrapped were found. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given' some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles of the instruments of crime and which leads to the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. In the present case as discussed above the confessional statement of the disclosure made by the appellant Gurbachan Singh is confirmed by the recovery of the incriminating articles as said above and, therefore, there is reason to believe that the disclosure statement was true and the evidence led in that behalf is also worthy of credence.
72. In the light of the facts stated above we are afraid the two decisions mentioned above and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants have no application to the facts of the present case and do not advance the case of the appellants challenging the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles discussed above. In Nari Santa AIR 1945 Patna 161 : 1945 (46) Cri LJ 613 (supra) the accused of that case was charged for the theft and it is said that in the course of investigation the accused produced certain articles and thereafter made a confessional statement and it was in these facts and circumstances it was held that there * was no disclosure statement within the meaning of Section 27 as the confessional statement was made only when the articles were already discovered having been produced by the accused. Similarly the decision rendered in Abdul Sattar AIR 1986 SC 1438 : 1986 Cri LJ 1072 (supra) also does not help the appellants in the present case. In the case of Abdul Sattar (supra) recovery of wearing apparels of the deceased is said to have been made at the instance of the accused of that case more than three weeks after the occurrence from a public place accessible to the people of the locality and, therefore, no reliance was placed on the disclosure statement and recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased. But in the present case it was soon after the arrest of appellant Gurbachan Singh that he took the Police Officer while in custody to the place where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia wrapped by the incriminating articles. Those articles were not found lying on the surface of the ground but they were found after unearthing Khudgraha dumping ground under the hillock. Those articles were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were hidden under the ground. They were discovered only after the place was pointed out and It was unearthed by the labourers. No fault therefore could be found with regard to the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles.
20. It would appear that accused Gurbachan Singh in the case before the Supreme Court led the police officer while in custody to the place where, according to him, the dead body wrapped by incriminating articles of Urshia was thrown. Although those articles were not found lying on the surface of the ground and found at a different place beneath the earth, no fault was found with regard to discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles. It is important to note here that no disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in the said case. In the instant case as well, although the statement, Exhitait-6, recorded by the police officer is vitiated on technical ground, yet the fact remains that the dead body was recovered and the wearing apparels of the deceased were seized from the place as shown by the accused Taizuddin in presence of the Executive Magistrate, the Investigating Officer and the three public witnesses of whom one is the Sweeper [P.W. 8) who made a categorical statement that the dead body was picked up by him at the instance of the accused Taizuddin. In this case, on factual matrix, we stand almost at par with the case dealt with by the Supreme Court. In our opinion, even though the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused Taizuddin, the same being not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for want of prior disclosure statement may be relevant as post-crime conduct of the accused under second paragraph of Section 8 of the said Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the recovery of the dead body of Rahul and his wearing apparels at the instance of the accused Taizuddin is a fact relevant under the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. Besides, there is also some evidence about motive behind the crime. It has been stated by P.W. 1 during the course of his cross-examination that the deceased had kidnapped Musst. Balijan Begum, sister-in-law of the accused Taizuddin. The accused Taizuddin also told this witness that his sister in law Balijan Begum has been kidnapped by the deceased. P.W. 2 Must. Batibu Begum, the mother of the deceased, in course of her cross-examination stated that accused Taizuddin came to their house and told her that the deceased Rahul had kidnapped one girl. This accused also asked P.W. 2 whether her daughter would be given in marriage with the co-accused Mohibur. P. W. 3, Md. Badrul Ali, the complainant, stated in his examination in-chief that the accused Taizuddin came to their house on the next day after taking of the deceased from the bus-stand and told that the deceased Rahul had eloped with his sister-in-law. Further, the accused Taizuddin told him that he would be away for about a month to search out Rahul and bring him back home. During the course of his cross-examination, this witness further told that the accused Taizuddin also told that Rahul might have been killed by the ULFA.
22. It would appear from the evidence coming forth during the course of cross-examination of the above prosecution witnesses that Rahul was having an affair with the sister-in-law of accused Taizuddin who of his own after the incident at Dhomdhoma bus-stand came to their house and reported that Rahul might have been killed by ULFA and that he would be away for about a month in search of Rahul. The evidence of the witnesses reproduced above clearly indicates that the relationship between the accused Taizuddin and Rahul was embittered over latter's affairs with his sister-in-law. This may be construed as a motive behind elimination of Rahul. This conduct of accused Taizuddin, in our opinion, is also relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
23. P.W. 9, Mustt. Khatima Begum, who has been declared hostile stated that she knows the accused persons as well as Rahul who had gone to their house along with accused Taizuddin who is related to her. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. A suggestion put to her that she told the Investigating Officer that accused Taizuddin and Mohibur killed Rahul by cutting his neck with knife and kept the dead body in that house for the whole day and on that very night Mohibur, Taizuddin, Moniur and Baphan All buried the dead body on the back side of the 'bil' (Big and large pond) has been denied. In her cross-examination, she stated that police tortured her and took her statement in the police station. Unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor has not taken care to get the contradiction proved through the Investigating Officer. Therefore, we are not in a position to attach any importance to the statement of this witness.
24. Next comes Shri Nripan Barman, P.W. 7, the owner and driver of an auto rickshaw. According to him, on 24-1-1991, in front of Nalbari Civil (probably hospital), at about 6.30 to 7 p.m., three boys approached him for a ride to Arikuchi. The fare was settled at Rs. 50/- and he dropped them at Arikuchi. About 18 days after he came to know that one of the three boys who had travelled in his rickshaw was killed. This witness, however, could not name the accused persons nor there is anything in his evidence to show that he had identified any one of them in the dock. Therefore, his evidence does not appear to be of much significance except to the effect that he had carried in his rickshaw the three boys on 24-1-1991 to the village from where the dead body of Rahul was recovered.
25. We may now recapitulate the circumstances that emerge from the evidence in the following order :-
(1) The first circumstance that Rahul was taken from Dhomdhoma bus-stand by appellants Taizuddin All and Mohibur Rahman stands proved by the evidence of P.W. 6.
(2) The post-crime conduct of the appellant Taizuddin as evidence by P.W. 3 Md. Badrul All, P.W. 5 Shri Abdul Aziz, P.W. 8 Shri Sambhu Basfor, P.W. 11 Shri B. K. Choudhury and P.W. 12 Shri Probodh Ch. Sen to the effect that the dead body of Rahul was recovered from a 'bil' (large pond) near the residence of Taizuddin as pointed out by him in presence of Mohibur Rahman stands proved. Their evidence is also supported by the Inquest Report, Exhibit-2, prepared at the site immediately after the recovery of the dead body.
(3) The third circumstance relating to motive is discernible from the fact that the appellant Taizuddin All had an embittered relationship with deceased Rahul for having an affair with his sister-in-law.
(4) The fourth circumstance is apparent in the conduct of the accused Taizuddin who had visited the house of the deceased Rahul after his disappearance and told that Rahul might have eloped with his sister-in-law or might have been killed by ULFA. This shows that he made an attempt to divert the attention of the near relatives of Rahul so as to keep him beyond suspicion.
(5) The appellant Taizuddin was declared absconder by the learned Sessions Judge during the course of trial. This Court while hearing the appeal of accused Mohibur ordered that he be arrested and tried. Accordingly, he was arrested and convicted after conclusion of trial. This conduct on his part is indicative of his state of mind which is also relatable to the alleged crime.
26. The next point contended by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the FIR was lodged on suspicion after 12 days with omission with regard to vital information. In this connection our attention has also been drawn to the decision in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501 : 1972 Cri LJ 1296. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was unsafe to base conviction in a case when an occurrence is not reported for more than 20 hours after the occurrence even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. But in the instant case, it would appear that there was a state of confusion with regard to disappearance of Rahul Islam, the deceased. It was nurtured that he might have had eloped with Ms. Bali]an Begum and, therefore, the inmates of the house were under the impression that he might return. After waiting in vain, an information relating to his missing was filed on 5-2-1991 i.e. after about 12 days. This information submitted in writing has been marked as Exhibit-7 from where we find that Md. Rahul was missing from 24-1-1991. That apart, it was also mentioned in this complaint petition that he had love affair with Ms. Balijan Begum, daughter of Md. Naikar All and it was further informed that it was heard from people that Rahul Islam had gone to the house of Musstt. Bali Begum on 24-1-91 along with appellant Taizuddin All, the brother-in-law of Musst. Bali Begum. This report although belated cannot be faulted with because of the circumstances under which Rahul was missing. On the following day i.e. on 6-2-1991 the FIR was filed before the Police Station informing that they came to know from some people in the morning hours of 6-2-1991 that on 25-1 -91 the appellants Md. Taizuddin All and Mohibur Rahman along with some other persons had killed Rahul with knife and buried the dead body in an unknown place near the village Malopara. The delay in the instant case appears to be natural in view of the fact that the inmates of the house of Rahul were under the impression that he had eloped with Ms. Bali Begum and might come back home at any time. The delay, under the given circumstances, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The decision cited at the bar cannot, therefore, salvage the situation for the appellant on account of delay.
27. Our attention has been drawn to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Pandey v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1975 SC 1026 : 1975 Cri LJ 870 and Pohalya Motya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1949 : AIR 1979 SC 1949. In the former, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that omission of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. In the case before the Supreme Court, some omission occurred in the FIR lodged by the father of the murdered boy of important facts relating to the occurrence which were known to him prior to the lodging of the FIR. In the instant case, I do not find any fatal omission of any important matter in the FIR lodged on 6-2-1991. An FIR is not supposed to be a catalogue of all details including the events that preceded the crime. On 5-2-91, after hopelessly waiting for return of Rahul, an FIR was lodged informing about his missing with effect from 24-1-1991. On the following day i.e. on 6-2-91, they came to know from some people that the appellants had killed Rahul and they lodged the FIR naming the appellants as the killers of Rahul. Although the names of Informants have not been mentioned in the FIR, yet, fact remains that the appellants have been named. That apart, when people in general talk of certain crime, it may not be possible to pin-point them by name. The naming of the appellants specifically in the FIR renders the omission insignificant. In our considered opinion, the omission as pointed out by the learned counsel cannot obliterate the value of the evidence of P.W. 6 Lilima Rajbongshi and other prosecution witnesses about the previous and post-crime conduct of the appellants. The evidence on record sound uniformity and the probative value thereof lead to the conclusion that the appellants have caused the death of Rahul Islam, as alleged. The judgment in Pohalya Motya (supra) has been referred to show that in a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by concept, sufficient and reliable evidence and that the circumstances relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court, it has been argued that the chain of circumstances sought to be proved in the instant case are not complete so as to warrant a verdict of guilt. The main thrust of argument is on the point of recovery of the dead body and its relevancy under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. We have given the consideration to the submission advanced. The recovery of the dead body allegedly on disclosure made by accused Taijuddin is not being relied upon by us as a fact relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But the conduct of the appellant Taizuddin after commission of the crime specially indicating the place where the dead body was buried in presence of Mohibur can be treated as post-crime conduct relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. We have considered the evidence of the five prosecution witnesses on this point and, under no circumstances, we find any reason to disbelieve their version rendered with uniformity that the dead body was recovered at the instance of appellant Taizuddin. Though appellant Mohibur Rahman does not stand on same footing so far recovery of the dead body is concerned, but the other circumstances proved in the case indicate his involvement beyond all reasonable doubt particularly when we take into consideration the evidence of Smt. Lilima Rajbongshi, P.W. 6.
28. A dispassionate view of the gamut of the entire situation available from the evidence on record leads to the conclusion that the appellants Taizuddin and Mohibur Rahman in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Rahul Islam. The circumstances highlighted hereinbefore are so complete that they form a chain to relate the appellants with the alleged crime. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgments under appeal.
29. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
.