IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the admissibility and relevance of the accused's confessional statement leading to the discovery of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Singh, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2017 and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2017 passed by Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge 2nd, Motihari, East Champaran in Sessions Trial No.473 of 1995/ 31 of 2017 arising out of Govindganj P.S. case No.23 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to ‘I.P.C.’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, as per the fard beyan of informant Rama Shankar Prasad (P.W.11) recorded by S.H.O., Govindganj Police Station on 19.03.1995 at about 11:30 a.m. is that on 17.03.1995 at about 5 p.m. informant’s daughter, aged about 7 years, in course of playing went somewhere in the village and thereafter she was found missing. In course of search, the informant learnt in the morning of 19.03.1995 that appellant Mulur Mahto in the evening of 17.03.1995 had caught hold the hands of his daughter on the pretext of taking her to her house. On getting such information, the informant started searching Mulur Mahto and went his house, but he was not found at his home. The informant got information from the nearby people that Mulur Mahto is absconding a day after Holi i.e. on 17.03.1995. The neighbours also told that Mulur Mahto was a drinker having bad character. The informant suspected that somebody, on the pretext of taking the victim to her home, took the victim somewhere and killed her.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of informant, Govindganj P.S. case No.23 of 1995 dated 19.03.1995 was registered. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 302, 376 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and thereafter cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether fourteen witnesses, namely, Md. Shamim (P.W.1), Bhola Giri (P.W.2), Shravan Kumar Das (P.W.3), Sanjay Kumar Verma (P.W.4), Vinod Kumar (P.W.5), Phulmati Devi @ Tulpati Devi (P.W.6), Om Prakash (P.W.7), Bharat Giri (P.W.8), Raj Kumari Devi (P.W.9), Bishambhar Yadav (P.W.10), Rama Shankar Prasad-informant (P.W.11), Dr. Uday Shankar Pathak (P.W.12), Bishwanath Prasad (P.W.13) and Raj Kaushal Kumar (P.W.14). In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced exhibits as Ext.1 (formal F.I.R. including fardbeyan), Ext.2 (signature of Binod Kumar Yati on fardbeyan), Ext.2/1 (signature of Bishwambhar Yadav on carbon copy of Inquest report), Ext.2/2 (signature of Rama Shankar Prasad on fardbeyan), Ext.3 (postmortem report), Ext.4 (statement of Om Prakash @ Ravi Shankar under Section 164 Cr.P.C.), Exts.4/1 and 4/2 (signatures of Bishwanath Prasad, J.M., Motihari and Om Prakash on the statement of Om Prakash @ Ravi Shankar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. respectively), Ext.2/3 ((signature of Raj Kaushal Kumar on fardbeyan), Ext.5 (confessional statement of Mulur Mahto), Exts.5/1 to 5/2 (signatures of Mulur Mahto and Raj Kaushal Kumar respectively on the confessional statement of Mulur Mahto), Ext.6 (Inquest report) and Ext.2/4 (signature of Raj Kaushal Kumar on Inquest report). The defence has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of its case. After conclusion o