but a firm, and, cogent incriminatory link in the chain of circumstances. However, the learned trial Judge concerned, had not assigned any credence to the above purported link, on the ground, that the discovered site, purportedly at the instance of the accused concerned, rather was not a valid discovery at the instance of the accused concerned, as prior thereto, the police had an intimation or information, with respect to the body of the deceased concerned, hence already had lying there. The above reason for discarding the probative vigour of the disclosure statements, as respectively made by the accused concerned, and, as become respectively enclosed in Ex. PP, and, Ex. PQ, palpably does appear to be completely apt. The reason for forming the above conclusion, becomes founded in the factum, that the said place or site was evidently previously known to the investigating officer concerned. The foundation for making the above inference ensues from the factum, that the complainant had instituted a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68-69 of 2000, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, with an averment thereins, that on 27.1.2000, at about 8.00 A.M., accused Vinod had taken him, and, his relative one Mir Singh to Sector-46, Jharsa village, Gurgaon, and, had showed a highly decomposed dead body, which was lying in the gutter, and, in pursuance whereof the complainant Surjan Singh hence was led to make an intimation to the police officers of the CIA staff. Therefore, obviously when prior to the making of the signatured disclosure statements by the accused concerned, as become respectively enclosed in Ex. PP, and, Ex. PQ, the complainant had, on affidavit, accompanying his writ petition, as became instituted before the Hon'ble Apex Court, rather made a candid averment, that the accused had taken him, as well as his relative one Mir Singh, to the relevant site. Moreover, when he avers
