Urmila vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 162 Del

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 28.3.2007 and order of sentence dated 30.3.2007 by virtue of which, appellant has been convicted under Sections 365/302/120B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and in case the appellant fails to pay fine, SI for 15 days.

2. The story of the prosecution is that deceased-Kanhaiya Lal was the husband of the appellant. The couple was residing at A-64 Gali No. 6, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Badarpur; one Anil also used to reside with the couple in the said premises. A case was registered by the Police Station Badarpur under Section 365 IPC on 8.12.2002, on the basis of a complaint made by the brother of the deceased- Sh. Hari Lal Bharti. As per his complaint to the Police, he had received a telephone call on 6.12.2002 from one Nand Kishore Giri, informing him that his brother, Kanhaiya Lal was not present at his house for the last one and a half months; and the wife of the deceased i.e. Urmila, the present appellant had disclosed to him that her husband had gone to Ludhiana and thereafter no satisfactory reply was given by her. On coming to know about this, Acche Lal (elder brother of the deceased) had come to the house of complainant and enquired from him. Both the brothers (Hari Lal Bharti and Acche Lal) reached Meethapur, Badarpur to enquire about their brother - Kanhaiya Lal. They found the house locked. On enquiry from the neighbours they came to know that Urmila had gone to Pul Prahladpur. Both the brothers went to Pul Prahladpur at the residence of one Om Nath Giri, who was the landlord of Kanhaiya Lal, at one time. On enquiry, Urmila was unable to give a satisfactory reply about the whereabouts of her husband and the complainant suspected the involvement of Urmila and Anil in the disappearance of Kanhaiya Lal.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, upon interrogation, in the presence of the brothers of the deceased, Urmila disclosed that her husband (Kanhaiya Lal) was murdered by her and Anil on 19.10.2002. In pursuance of the disclosure statement Urmila took the police party to her residence at Om Nagar. One Abid Hussain and Shiv Prasad Mehto residing in the neighborhood joined in the investigation; the appellant confessed her guilt and got recovered the dead body of the deceased (Kanhaiya Lal) lying in the septic tank situated in the Court yard of the house of the deceased. Crime team took the photographs. Accused/appellant was arrested; and rough site plan was prepared. The dead body was sent to the mortuary. On 9.12.2002 the post mortem on the dead body was conducted. As Anil could not be traced, he was declared as a proclaimed offender. The prosecution has in all examined thirteen (13) witnesses; statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to the appellant, she was falsely implicated in the case. No defense evidence was led.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on conjectures and surmises. The learned court has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence against the appellant, except, the disclosure statement made by her, which is not admissible in evidence. It is also submitted that the witnesses have made substantial improvements in their testimony before the Court and there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses according to the learned Counsel for the appellant are vague and scanty and thus the trial court has committed grave error in law in passing the impugned judgment, which according to him is based on erroneous understanding of law. According to counsel for the appellant, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also vehemently argued that there is no proof of corpus delicti, as the condition of the dead body was such that it was completely beyond recognition and thus it has not been proved that the body which was recovered from the septic tank was that of the husband of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that it is not clear as to who had written the disclosure statement. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court to the evidence of PW-12, S.I. Rajnish Kumar, where in the cross-examination he had stated that the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-5/C) is not in his hand writing and had also stated that he did not remember as to who had written the disclosure statement. Thus according to learned Counsel for the appellant/accused no reliance can be placed on the disclosure statement. Counsel for the appellant also submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances should form a complete chain of events which in facts of the present case are missing.

6. Learned APP for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that deceased (Kanhaiya Lal) was missing, his wife who is the appellant neither contacted his relatives nor approached the Police. Her conduct itself would show that she is guilty. Learned APP for the State also contends that the dead body was identified by the brothers of the deceased and no ground was raised before the trial court nor any cross-examination was carried out with respect of the identification of the dead body. It is also submitted that there are no material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the appeal is without any merit.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, who have taken us through the evidence on record. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. We consider it appropriate to analyze the evidence of some of the material witnesses in this case.

8. PW-1 is S.I. Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that on 8.12.2002 he was called from Police Station Badarpur and he along with SHO went to Gali No. 6, House No. 64, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Badarpur, where S.I. Rajnish, ASI Nageshwari, constable Sher Singh and the appellant herein along with public persons were present; on the pointing out of Urmila Devi, septic tank which was in the courtyard of the house was opened and checked. One dead body of male was lying therein. Photographs of place of occurrence were clicked. The dead body was identified by the brothers of the deceased.

9. PW-2, Abid Hussain, has testified that on Sunday, 8.12.2002, he was sitting in the house of Mr. Mehto and he heard the noise 'POLICE AA GAI POLICE AA GAI', he came out of the Gali and saw Police and general public. He saw the appellant as well as brothers of the deceased (Kanhaiya Lal). In his presence S.I. Rajnish Kumar enquired from Urmila with regard to the case. According to the Abid Hussain, Urmila stated that the dead body was lying in the tank of latrine, she told the Police in his presence that she had hit Kanhaiya Lal with iron pipe on his head; she had then strangulated his neck with paijama; another person Anil was with her, who had held Kanhaiya Lal. In response to the question of S.I. Rajnish, this witness had stated that he knew Kanhaiya Lal, as he was residing in that house for the last four months, however, he had not seen him for more than one month and three quarters of a month ago. Urmila had pointed to the septic tank of the latrine to show that the dead body was lying inside the tank. The tank was covered by one stone on it, which was removed and he had also seen the dead body lying in the tank. According to him the dead body was of Kanhaiya Lal. On the next day a room near the septic tank was dug and clothes of the deceased having blood stained were recovered.

10. PW-4, Shiv Prasad Mehto, is also a neighbour. According to him the appellant used to reside in his neighborhood along with her husband ( Kanhaiya Lal) and Anil Kumar (so called brother). He had not seen Kanhaiya Lal 45 days prior to 8.12.2002 and during this period appellant was living with Anil Kumar. As per PW-4 on 8.12.2002, the appellant in the presence of the Police and brothers of Kanhaiya Lal pointed towards septic tank of her house and stated that the dead body was lying in the septic tank. She further disclosed that something was given in the food of the deceased, tied him with a rope and hit him with an iron rod and thereafter they threw the dead body in septic tank. The witness states that he as well as the brothers (Hiralal and Acche Lal) of the deceased, identified the dead body. The Police seized the dead body. He signed the seizure memo (Ex.PW-4/A). In his cross-examination PW-4 has stated that on his enquiring about the whereabouts Kanhaiya Lal, the appellant had mentioned that he had gone to Ludhiana in connection with some work. He has also stated in his cross-examination that in his presence pant, shirt, a pair of shoes and some documents in torn conditions were also recovered in his presence.

11. PW-5, is the brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that on 6.12.2002, Nand Kishore Giri had telephoned his elder brother, Acche Lal and informed him that Kanhaiya Lal was not present in his house for the last one and a half months. On 8.12.2002 Acche Lal came to his house and thereafter they both came to the house of Kanhaiya Lal at Om Nagar. On being found the house locked and after enquiring from the neighbour they learnt that the appellant had gone to Pul Prahladpur. Acche Lal also talked to the appellant with regard to the whereabouts of his brother. The police officials had interrogated the appellant and she had told the police officials that the dead body of Kanhaiya Lal is lying in the septic tank at the house of Om Nagar. On reaching Om Nagar, the appellant pointed towards septic tank, the pointing out memo bears his signature and is exhibited as Ex.PW-4/C. He identified the dead body of his brother vide statement PW-5/B. The disclosure statement of the appellant also bears the signature of PW-5 at point (a). The disclosure statement is Ex.PW-5/C. In the cross-examination this witness had stated that there was no quarrel nor any property dispute between the brothers.

12. PW-6, Acche Lal Bharti, who is also the brother of the deceased has primarily reiterated what has been stated by PW-5. He had also identified dead body of his brother vide statement (PW-6/A) as well as disclosure made by the appellant in his presence and in the presence of his brother, one Mehto and a public official, who appended their signatures to it. In his cross-examination he has stated that his brother was living happily with his wife and he had never complained to him about his wife.

13. According to PW-9 Constable Sher Singh, the appellant had disclosed in his presence that she and co-accused, Anil committed the murder of Kanhaiya Lal and threw the dead body in the latrine tank. In his cross-examination PW-9 has stated that the disclosure statement of the accused/appellant was recorded by the I.O. in his presence and in fact the I.O. recorded the same in his hand writing. The post mortem report has been proved by PW-11. As per the post mortem report, injuries were found on the person of the deceased, the cause of death was coma due to head injury caused by blunt force which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This witness was not cross- examined.

14. As per evidence of PW-12, S.I. Rajnish Kumar, the appellant had made a statement that she along with her so called brother, killed Kanhaiya Lal and his dead body was thrown in the septic tank of house No. A-64, Gali No. 6, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Badarpur. The appellant had disclosed that she can get the dead body recovered. The dead body was recovered and identified by the complainant. In the cross-examination he has stated that the disclosure statement is not in his hand writing and nor does he remember who has written the same. Further in the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that the appellant did not make the disclosure statement or that he had recorded the disclosure statement on the asking of Hiralal Bharti or Akshay Lal Bharti. he has identified the signatures of the appellant on the disclosure statement at point (b) and (c). In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant had stated that she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.

15. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant can be summarized as under:

(a) Judgment of the trial court is erroneous as it is based on surmises and conjectures and solely based on circumstantial evidence.

(b) There are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.

(c) The disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence.

(d) There is no proof of corpus delicti, as the dead body could not be identified being beyond recognition; and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

16. In a case based on circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction, the evidence must be complete and incapabale of explanation. The Court must satisfy itself that the chain of circumstances are complete and the surrounding circumstances fully establish the guilt of the accused/appellant. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been discussed in detail in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra reported at . It would be useful to reproduce the relevant paras:

8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the acused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan , Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 31, Earaohadrappa v. State of Karnataka , State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. , Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Ashok Kumar Chaterjee v. State of M.P. . The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. , wherein it has been observed thus:

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl. LJ 1104 it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favor of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book 'Wills' Circumstantial Evidence' (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.

13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952.

14. In Hanuman Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of M.P. it was observed thus:

It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra . Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defense or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

17. Bearing the above principles of law in mind, we shall examine the circumstances appearing in this case.

18. From the reading of the evidence it is not disputed that the deceased was married to the appellant. They were both residing together at A-64, Gali No. 6 Om Nagar, Meethapur, Badarpur. The husband of the deceased was missing for more than one month and a half from 8.12.2002. Admittedly, the appellant did not inform the Police about the disappearance of her husband nor she informed any of the neighours or close relations including brothers of the deceased. On being informed telephonically, Hira Lal Bharti and his brother Acchelal came to know that their brother was missing. They enquired from his wife, however, as no satisfactory answer was received, they reported the matter to the police.

19. As per the evidence of the brothers of the deceased PW-5 and PW-6 a telephone call was received by PW-5 from one Nand Kishore Giri that his brother was not present at his house for the past 1' months. Upon receiving the information both the brothers visited the house of the deceased at A-64 Gali No. 6, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Badarpur. The house was found locked and upon enquiry from the neighbours both PW-5 and PW-6 visited Pul Prahladpur and met the wife of the deceased appellant herein. As no satisfactory explanation was given by the appellant, the matter was reported to the reported to the Police. The appellant was interrogated and she admitted killing her husband with the help of one Anil. The accused/appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/C which bears the signatures of the accused/appellant at points (A) and (B). As per the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-9 and PW-12, the appellant led to the discovery of the dead body in the septic tank at her house. The disclosure was made in the presence of the brothers of the deceased as well as PW-2 Abid Hussain and PW-4 Shiv Prasad Mehto, who are independent witnesses. At the pointing out of the appellant, a room near the septic tank was dug up and blood stained clothes of the deceased were also recovered. The appellant admittedly did not inform either the close relation of her husband, the neighbour or the police about the fact that her husband was missing.

20. In this case, pursuant to the disclosure statement made, the appellant had led the police to the place where the deceased was murdered and also led the police in the presence of the brothers of the deceased as well as public witnesses to the septic tank where the dead body was kept by her. In effect, it is the appellant who had led the discovery of the dead body as well as the clothes which were worn by the deceased at the time of his death. Thus, there is a direct nexus between the disclosure statement and the commission of the offence. The entire chain of events cogently and firmly establish the guilt of the appellant.

21. The evidence of the material witness including PW-5, Harilal Bharti as well as other brother PW-6, Acchelal Bharti is trustworthy, consistent and natural, and there is no reason why reliance should not be placed thereupon. The witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the defense has failed to make any dent during the cross-examination or any doubt in their evidence. The evidence of both the neithbours PW-2, Abid Hussain and PW-4, Shiv Prasad Mehto are also trustworthy and thus we are unable to agree with the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses.

22. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that in a criminal prosecution one of the essentials to be proved with certainty is the corpus delicti, which the prosecution has failed to establish.

23. In Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim , Supreme Court has observed:

4. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that in the absence of any motive and the corpus delicti, it is unsafe to place reliance on the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution; more so when the said evidence is replete with discrepancies, omissions and improvements. He pointed out that in regard to a part of the evidence of the prosecution, the Courts below themselves have not placed reliance, therefore, in a case of circumstantial evidence of this nature, it would be dangerous to base a conviction. We do not find much more in this argument of Mr. Lalit. It is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. What is therefore required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced, See Sevaka Perumal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu . Therefore, the argument that in the absence of corpus delicti the prosecution case should be rejected, cannot be accepted.

24. In Ramjee Rai and Anr. v. State of Bihar (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 626, Supreme Court has further clarified the law on the subject, holding:

22. It is now a trite law that corpus delicti need not be proved. Discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law. In the even, there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in absence of the dead body. [See Rama Nand v. State of H.P. ]

23. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar , this Court noticed the decision in Rama Nand and opined: (SCC p. 319, para 23)

23. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law set out above. As is set out in the various authorities (referred to above), it is not at all necessary for a conviction for murder that the corpus delicti be found. Undoubtedly, in the absence of the corpus delicti there must be direct or circumstantial evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that the person has died and that the accused are the persons who had committed the murder.

25. We are also unable to agree with the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no proof of corpus delicti as the body was beyond recognition and thus there is no proper identification of the body of the deceased to be that of Kanhaiya Lal. The dead body was duly identified both by PW-5 as well as PW-6, the brothers of the deceased. Both these witnesses were cross-examined, however on the condition of body neither any question was put to show that the body was beyond recognition.

26. PW-11 Dr. Chitranjan Behra has proved the post mortem report 1226/2002 and in his evidence he has stated that 'skin over face was partly preserved and contours of face and identifying features were well preserved.' In view of the categorical statement made by the brothers of the deceased as well as based on the post mortem report, we find that the dead body has been properly identified.

27. It was strongly argued that the disclosure statement cannot be relied upon and also for the reason that there is material contradiction in the evidence of PW-9, Constable Sher Singh and PW-12 SI Rajnish Kumar. The disclosure statement was made in the presence of PW-1, PW-2, Abid Hussain, PW-4, Shiv Prasad Mehto, PW-5, Harilal Bharti, PW-6, Acche Lal Bharti, PW-9 and PW-12. The signatures on this disclosure statement has been identified by PW-12 at points (b) and (c).

28. To say that the disclosure statement has not been proved in view of the fact that PW-12 has stated in cross-examination that the disclosure statement is not in his handwriting and he does not remember who had written the same, this by itself cannot be a reason to say that the statement has not been proved in view of the fact that in the later portion of the cross-examination, PW-12 has denied the suggestion that the appellant either did not make the disclosure statement or that he had recorded the disclosure statement on the asking of Hari Lal Bharti and Akshay Lal Bharti.

29. With regard to admissibility of the disclosure statement, Supreme Court in Golakonda Venkateshwara Rao v. State of A.P. , in head note has held:

B. Evidence Act, 1872 'Section 27' Disclosure statement of accused leading to recovery of crime articles from concealed place -- Even though the disclosure statement and the recovery memo did not bear the accused's signature, held, that pursuant to the disclosure MOs 1-8 were recovered from the well and dug out from the place which was pointed out by the appellant and therefore such disclosure was voluntary - That the recovery was in consequence to the information given fortified and confirmed by the discovery of the wearing apparel and skeletal remains of the deceased and therefore the information and statement cannot be held false.

30. Further defining the law with regard to admissibility of the disclosure statement, Supreme Court in Nisar Khan Alias Guddu and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal , has observed:

6. Regarding the second contention that the recovery of arms has not been proved by the prosecution has also no substance. It is evidence on record that the accused were arrested on 17.12.1999 and pursuant to a disclosure statement made by them, the arms were recovered from the bank of Gaula river where these had been hidden under the sand and covered by the stones. All the arms were recovered as pointed out by each accused hidden under the stones. The High Court fell in error in holding that the recovery has not been proved as these were recovered from a place which is frequented by the public. This finding of the High Court is contrary to the evidence on record. 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. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. , it is held that the entire statement made by an accused person before the police is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Sections 25 and 26 but that part of his statement which led to the discovery of the articles is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Act. It is also held that the Court must disregard the inadmissible part of the statement and take note only of that part of his statement which distinctly relates to the discovery of the articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. It is further held that the 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 its existence.

7. In Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. this Court reiterated the view and held that the discovery statement of an accused leading to recovery of crime articles from concealed place, even though the discovery statement and the recovery memo did not bear the accused's signature, the fact of recovery from the well and dug out was from a place which was pointed out by the appellant and, therefore, such discovery was voluntary. That the recovery was in consequence to the information given was fortified and confirmed by the discovery of the apparel worn and skeletal remains of the deceased and, therefore, the information and statement cannot be held to be false. In the present case on the recovery memo the signatures of all the accused have been obtained. In Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka the same view has already been reiterated.

8. As already noted, in the instant case the discovery of the arms was pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused immediately after the arrest and the offending arms were recovered at the place pointed out by each of the accused which were concealed under the sand and covered by the stones. The High Court in this regard fell in grave error by disbelieving the recovery memo solely on the ground that the place is a common place which is frequented by the public. The High Court failed to take notice that the recovery has been made from underneath the sand covered by the stones pursuant to the disclosure statement pointed out by each of the accused.

31. The consequence of the statement resulted in discovery of the place and the dead body, and these were facts which were not within the knowledge of the police and were discovered for the first time on the information given by the appellant. On pointing out that the dead body was in the septic tank, the action of the appellant related directly to the commission of the offence. Since the information given by the appellant led to discovery of facts, which facts were not within the knowledge of the police and also which had a direct relation and nexus to the commission of the offence, the same would be covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

32. The dead body as well as clothes of the deceased-Kanhaiya Lal were recovered at the instance/pointing out of the accused/appellant, which has further been fortified by the injuries found on the person of the deceased. The law with regard to the admissibility of statement is discussed in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. (Supra) wherein it has been held that the entire statement made by an accused person before the police is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Sections 25 and 26 but that part of his statement which led to the discovery of the articles is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Act. In the light of the above discussion we find no force in the arguments of the appellant.

33. We are also not convinced by the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the wife did not lodge any report with the police as her husband used to frequently travel for days at a stretch. In view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased used to travel for weeks and months and, thus, it was not unusual for him to have been missing for more than 45 days.

34. This Court has taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was married to the appellant and they were last residing together. It is unusal that in spite of the fact that the deceased was missing for over a month and a half, the appellant i.e his wife did not either report the matter to the police nor informed her close relations about his disappearance.

35. It is only the brothers of the deceased PW-5 and PW-6 who received information from Nand Kishore Giri that the brother was missing and since they did not get a satisfactory answer from the wife, they reported the matter to the police. This Court has also taken into consideration the evidence of the neighbours who have deposed that the deceased was missing for more than 45 days and during this period, the appellant was staying with one Anil Kumar; on 08.12.2002 the appellant in the presence of the brothers of deceased, the neighbours i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 pointed out to the septic tank where the dead body was lying.

36. For the reasons aforestated, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned court below, holding the appellant guilty for the offence. We find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the recovery effected at the pointing out of the appellant and the disclosure made by her are sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 302/120B IPC. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.