Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Shri N.K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant / Tulsi Mandal and Mr. Md. Mumtazuddin, the learned Advocate for the appellant /Sitara Khatun. The State in both the appeals has been represented by Mr. Bipin Kumar, the learned APP.

3. Both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -III, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 62/2017 /Sessions Trial No. 157/2017 /CIS No. 62/2017. By order dated 25.02.2022, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 364/34 IPC; R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and R.I for three years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. One Sajid, five years old, became traceless and after twelve days, his dead body was recovered from under a banana tree covered with banana leaf.

5. A peculiar F.I.R was lodged by father of Sajid (deceased), namely, Amrul (PW7) who alleged in his written report lodged on 14.09.2016 that his son (deceased) had become traceless since 03.09.2016. At that time, he was residing at Delhi. An information was provided to Bhawanipur Police Station about the missing of his son. On further enquiry in his village home, he learnt that Sitara Khatoon, one of the appellants and a close relative was behind the kidnapping. When pressure was mounted on the aforenoted Sitara Khatoon, she admitted her guilt and disclosed before the villagers that since the deceased had seen her and the appellant / Tulsi Mandal in a compromising position sometimes in the past, therefore, the deceased was kidnapped, killed and buried in the field under a banana tree. At the instance of appellant / Sitara Khatun, the dead body in the shape of a collection of skeleton was recovered. A wearing apparel also was recovered from the site. He, therefore, was sanguine that the appellants, because of their immoral activities, had killed the deceased who had witnessed their association in the past.

6. Based on the afore-noted written report, a case vide Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 163 of 2016 dated 14.09.2016 was registered for investigation for the offence under Section 364, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC.

7. The F.I.R reveals that the information regarding the occurrence was received in the police station on 14.09.2016 at about 10.15 A.M. The F.I.R was registered at 3.30 P.M. Before the F.I.R. was registered, the dead body (skeleton) is said to have been recovered.

8. A look at the inquest report would make it very obvious that the recovery was sometimes around 11.45 A.M. on 14.09.2016. It was only skeleton without even a shred of muscle or anything which would have made the identification of the skeleton to be of the deceased any easy task. The inquest was prepared by the police officer and countersigned by Tabrez Alam (PW10) and Khurshid Alam (PW11).

9. The investigator of this case, namely, Amrendra Kumar Amar (PW12) has deposed before the Trial Court that after the F.I.R. was received in the police station, the investigation was taken up by him. He thereafter reached the place of occurrence where he found the skeleton of the dead body of a child which had earlier been discovered by the informant and his associates. The place where the recovery was made was the field of one Gopal Prasad Singh, who has not been examined at the trial. In presence of witnesses, the skeleton was seized. Even the skeleton was not in one piece; rather the legs and the hands were disjointed. The head was only in the form of a skull. Such recovery was penned down and marked as Ext- 5.

10. We have taken reference of all this only for the reason of satisfying ourselves tha