P.K. Phukan, J.

The death reference and the appeal preferred by the appellants against their conviction and sentence are taken up together for disposal for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. The accused appellants stood convicted under Sections 302/364A/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 27/2013 vide his judgment and order dated 21.04.2015 and death sentence has been awarded to all the 3 accused appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and sentence, they have preferred this appeal for setting aside their conviction and sentence.

4. This is a case of brutal murder of a young boy aged about 18/19 years alleged to have been committed by the appellants with a view to realize ransom from his father. The deceased Arup Dutta, a resident of Nakhola, Jagiroad under Jagiroad Police Station was found missing from his house since the evening of 15.07.2011 and though his father Apu Dutta made vigorous search in the house of his relatives, he was not found. Having no other alternative he lodged information with the Officer-in-charge, Jagiroad Police Station on the basis of which Jagiroad Police Station GD Entry 440 dated 17.07.2011 was made. When the search was continuing, his neighbour Parimita Dey received a telephone call from Mobile No. 8486448856 belonging to the deceased. The unidentified caller instructed her to give the telephone number to the father of the deceased and to contact them on that number and accordingly she gave the telephone number to the informant asking him to call on that number. When he contacted that number he was asked to pay ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- for release of his son and when he expressed his inability to pay the amount the demand came down to Rs.30,00,000/-. He informed the caller about his inability to pay the aforesaid amount also.

5. Suspecting that his son was kidnapped he filed an FIR with the O/C, Jagiroad Police Station on the basis of which Jagiroad Police Station Case No. 98/2011 under Section 365/384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered and investigation started.

6. In the course of investigation, the accused appellants were arrested and on the basis of disclosure statement made by them the dead body of the deceased was recovered from Amuguri hills of Karbi Anglong district on being led by the accused appellants.

7. The confessional statement of the accused appellant Mohan Teron was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination, inquest was also held and since it was in a decomposed state, DNA profiling was done. During the investigation, Section 302/201/34 was added on being allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused appellants under 365/387/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. During trial which commenced before the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses including the officials. Defence took the plea of total denial.

9. We have heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. B. Chakroborty, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment of the learned trial court from all sides but the main thrust of his argument centered around the delayed filing of the FIR, inadmissibility of the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,