32. From a cumulative assessment of the evidence on record what is clearly discernible is that none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed that petitioner had murdered or committed any act to cause the death of the deceased Pankaj Baruah. It was only in the evidence of PW-15 Sri Lakheswar Chelleng, the Investigating Officer that Sri Nepal Ghosh had disclosed to the police during investigation that after killing Pankaj Baruah, he along with Nabajyoti Phukan @ Akani and appellant Labanya Deka @ Lai Deka took the dead body to the potato garden of Lai Deka in a gunny bag and buried the body there. Such a statement made before the police is not admissible in evidence in view of the clear prohibition in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even PW-1 in his cross-examination clearly stated that as far as he knew, accused Labanya Deka did not take part in the commission of murder of Pankaj Baruah. All that he stated in his evidence-in-chief was that Hem Chandra Gogoi, the brother-in-law of the appellant had informed him that the missing boy i.e., Pankaj Baruah had been traced out whereafter, he took PW-1 to the house of Labanya Deka stating that Labanya Deka knew the whereabouts of the missing child. When PW-1 asked Labanya Deka about the missing child, she initially refused to say anything, but later on prodded by her brother-in-law, she replied that Pankaj Baruah was killed by her nephew and another youth whereafter, the dead body was kept concealed in her homestead land.
