JUDGMENT 1. - By his Judgement dated June 28, 1979 the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicted the accused Mst. Mirchali under sections 302 and 201, IPC, and sentenced her to imprisonment for life with a tine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment on the first and two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one months' like imprisonment of second count; Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently while those in default I of the payment of fine consecutively. 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Sohan Lal was the husband of the appellant. Both were living with their daughter PW 2 Pappi aged about 13-14 years in a Dhani raised in their field situate Chak-4 10 B. G. Rohi Gugiya Police Station Vijaynagar district Ganganagar. The victim got addicted to drinking. He used to beat the accused off and on and threatened her to bring another wife since no male child was born to her. This gave rise to strained relations between the husband and wife. In the night of August 9, 1978, the deceased picked up quarrel with the accused. She struck blows of his head with a Kassi which resulted in his death. The accused thereafter dug a pit near her Dhani and burried the victim's corpse deep in it. On August 10, 1978 the victim's father PW 3 Paras Ram who was living in Chak J.K.M. came lo the Dhani of the appellant and finding his son Sohan Lal missing, asked her about his whereabouts. She told him that her husband had gone towards Bikaner and Suratgarh where Fakir Chand (son-in-law of Parasram) had to attend a date of hearing in some Court. Parashram went to Suratgarh and contacted Fakir Chand and learnt from him that Sohan Lal had not reached. Paras Ram came back to the Dbani of appellant and told her that Sohan Lal had not reached Suratgarh. The appellant again told him that Sohan Lal had left the house telling her that he was going towards Bikaner and Suratgarh. Paras Ram went to his another son came back on August 15, 1978 to the appellant's Dhani He again asked her about the whereabouts of his son Sohan Lal. The appellant again told him that Sohan Lal had left the house telling her that he was going towards Bikaner and Suratgarh. Paras Ram went to his another son came back on August 15, 1978 to the appellant's Dhani He again asked her about the whereabouts of his son Sohan Lal. The accused stuck to her earlier version but Km. Pappi told him that her father (Sohan Lal) had died on account of excessive drinking and her mother (accused) had burried him in the water channel running nearby. Paras Ram asked the accused to state true facts. Thereupon the accused also cold him that Sohan Lal bad died due to excessive drinking and that she had burred him in the water-channel situate nearby. Parasram went to contact the Sarphanch Manphool, (PW 1). He was advised to inform the police. Paras Ram trilok the accused with him and went to police station, Vijaynagar on Aug. 17, 1978 and lodged report Ex. P 21. The police started the proceedings under section 174, Cr. P. C. The Station House Officer Banarsi Das (PW 10) sought permission L P. 24 from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar for the victim's body , being disinterred. He then came to the spot and at the accused's instance got the I victim's dead body disinterred from the water channel situate contiguous to her house. On the inspection of the dead body it appeared that injuries were caused to him on his neck and other vital parts. The Station House Officer suspected that the death of the victim was not natural. He, therefore registered a case under lections 302 and 201. I. P. C. against the appellant. The postmortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted on August 18. 1978 by PW 9 Dr. Suresh Sharma, the then Medical Officer In charge, Government Dispensary, Vijaynagar. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries: ``There was a wide wound on the left side of the neck and also on the front side of the neck. The outer size of the wound was 6" x 3" x 3". The structures i.e. the veins, arteries etc. passing through that area were also cut The vertebral column showed an incised wound on the cervical 5 and 6, Verte brea the ligaments also showed the inside appearance. The outer size of the wound was 6" x 3" x 3". The structures i.e. the veins, arteries etc. passing through that area were also cut The vertebral column showed an incised wound on the cervical 5 and 6, Verte brea the ligaments also showed the inside appearance. Long linear wound about 3" x 1/4''x 3" incised in appearance on the left side of the cheek near the nasal bone below the left eye. The skin was pealed off. But the nasal bone the left orbit and left maxillary cavity and left zygomatic arch was found cut through by a sharp cutting weapon. The left maxillary bone showed the dark coloured liquefied bloody fluid. On opening of the dead body, in the cranium any spinal cord region the skin was found pealed off at several places. The hair were found present. The membranes were found petrified. In the brain and spinal cord cranial cavity was found empty containing liquefied scanty brain matter. In the thorax region, the walls, ribs and cartilages, pleura, larynx and trachea, right and left lung pericardium, heart and large vessels were found petrified. The trachea was quite recognisable due to presence of cartilaginous structures. Both the lungs were liquefied and on touch showed the liquefied semi-solid or/and thready appearance. All the chambers of the heart were empty. In the abdominal region, all the organs were almost putrefied. Teeth and other structure in the mouth were recognisable. The colour of different organs gave the indication of their presence in the body. Penis was purified and testicles were present." In the opinion of Dr. Suresh Sharma, the cause of death of the victim wait due to shock which had been caused probably by the cutting of the blood vessels, of the incised wound inflicted by sharp edged weapon on the neck. He was also of the opinion that injury No. 1 on the victim's neck was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The postmortem examination report issued " by him is Ex. P. 19. The accused was arrested. In consequence of the information furnished by her whilst under police custody, the clothes which she was wearing at the time of committing the offence and the Kassi with which the offence was said to have been committed, were recovered. She was having some injuries on her person. She was, therefore, got medically examined. P. 19. The accused was arrested. In consequence of the information furnished by her whilst under police custody, the clothes which she was wearing at the time of committing the offence and the Kassi with which the offence was said to have been committed, were recovered. She was having some injuries on her person. She was, therefore, got medically examined. As may as seven injuries were found on her person as per injury report Ex. P. 20. It is alleged that before the Station House Officer arrived on the spot the appellant made a confession before P.W. 3 Paras Ram and many other persons to have committed the murder of her husband Sohan Lal. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar framed charges under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. against the appellant, to which she pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was led-in by the appellant. According to her, she was falsely implicated because her father-in-law P. W. 3 Paras Ram wanted to usurp her husband's agricultural land, she also gave an explanation as to how injuries were sustained by her while doing the agricultural work. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the charges duly proved against the appellant. She was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not challenge the opinion of Doctor Sharma (P. W. 9) relating to the cause of victim's death. We have gone through his statement and find no reasons to disagree with him on the cause of death of the victim. The victim died on account of the injuries specially on the neck which was found fatal. As such, the victim's death was not natural but homicidal. 5. At the very commencement, we may point out that there is no direct evidence against the appellant. The victim died on account of the injuries specially on the neck which was found fatal. As such, the victim's death was not natural but homicidal. 5. At the very commencement, we may point out that there is no direct evidence against the appellant. She was convicted on the circumstantial evidence The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution may, for the sake of convenience, be classified in the following categories : (i) Extra-judicial confession; (ii) Recovery of the victim's dead body at the instance of the appellant; (iii) the recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the appellants in consequence of the information furnished by her. (iv) recovery of Kassi in consequence of the information furnished by the appellant; (v) injuries were found on the person of the accused at the time of her arrest; (vi) false statement made by the appellant before her father-in-law Paras Ram (P. W. 1) that the victim had gone to Bikaner and Suratgarh and; (vii) the strong motive which the accused had to finish her husband. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, on a careful and elaborate scrutiny of the evidence, did not accept the evidence relating to categories Number 3, 4 and 5. He accepted the evidence as regards the extrajudicial confession, recovery of the dead body of the victim at the instance of the appellant, her conduct and the motive. According to him, the circumstantial evidence on these four points leads to the irresistible conclusion that the victim Sohan Lal was done to death by the appellant and that after committing his murder she burried his corpse in order to screen herself from penal consequences. 7. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the whole approach of the trial court was erroneous. In the first place, various facts relating to the circumstantial evidence do not stand proved. It was further urged that even if they are taken as proved, they are not sufficient to point out that the victim was done to death by the appellant. At the most, a suspicion arises but the conviction cannot be based only on suspicion however strong it may be. It was contended on the other hand by the learned Public Prosecutor that the extra judicial confession taken with other sets of evidence is sufficient to seek the conviction of the appellant. At the most, a suspicion arises but the conviction cannot be based only on suspicion however strong it may be. It was contended on the other hand by the learned Public Prosecutor that the extra judicial confession taken with other sets of evidence is sufficient to seek the conviction of the appellant. The accused has furnished no explanation as to how the dead body was found at a place situate adjacent to her Dhani. The dead body was recovered at her instance All these facts heavily speak against her. As such the conviction is proper. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. It would be proper to take a stock of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to find out whether the approach of the trial court is proper and the conviction of the appellant can be maintained. 8. The strongest set of evidence against the accused is that of her extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by her before PW 1 Manphool, PW 3 Paras Ram, PW 4 Gopal Das, PW 5 Shiv Kumar and PW 6 Banwari Lal. Now, except Paras Ram (PW 3) none has supported the prosecution about the appellant's extrajudicial confession. PW 1 Manphool is the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. He and the other witnesses referred to above are residents of village 14-G. B. According to the prosecution, the accused made a confession before them all that she had caused the death of her husband by inflicting blows to him with a Kassi. But none has lent any support to the prosecution during trial. Each of them was declared hostile. As such, the evidence of these four witnesses viz., PW 1 Manphool, PW 4 Gopal Das, PW 5 Shiv Kumar and PW 6 Banwari Lal discloses no incriminating material against the appellant. We may also point out that according to the prosecution the accused made the extra judicial confession in the presence of these four witnesses before the Investigating Officer arrived on the spot to get the victim dead body disinterred. If it was so, it was expected that these four witnesses must have disclosed the extra judicial confession to the Investigating Officer before the dead body was disinterred. According to the Investigating Officer, these four witnesses disclosed the fact of extra judicial confession only after when the victim's dead body was taken out from the pit. If it was so, it was expected that these four witnesses must have disclosed the extra judicial confession to the Investigating Officer before the dead body was disinterred. According to the Investigating Officer, these four witnesses disclosed the fact of extra judicial confession only after when the victim's dead body was taken out from the pit. Such being the case, the story of extra judicial confession alleged to have been made before these four witnesses does not commend to reason and falls to the ground. 9. Keeping this background in mind, the testimony of PW 3 Paras Ram should be scrutinised. He is the father of the deceased victim and is naturally, therefore, an interested person. He deposed that when he and the accused returned from Police Station, Vijay nagar after lodging report Ex. P 21 there, the accused got frightened. She, therefore, confessed before him that she had committed the murder of her husband and pleaded for mercy and help. Admittedly, this confession must have been made by the appellant to this witness Paras Ram (PW 3) before the arrival of the Investigating Officer to conduct proceedings under section 174,Cr. P. C. Now, if the confession was made before the arrival of police, it must have been disclosed by this witness to the Investigating Officer before the victim's dead body was disinterred. Had it been so, we would have attached much importance to the testimony of this witness. But this is not the case here. Paras Ram (PW 3) disclosed the extra judicial confession before the Investigating Officer only after the victim's dead body was disinterred. There is no explanation as to why this witness did not disclose the extra judicial confession as soon as the police arrived on the spot and before the convict's dead body was taken out from the grave. The conduct of this witness in suppressing the extra judicial confession and in not disclosing it at the earliest moment casts a serious doubt on the veracity of his testimony. This infirmity induces us to hold that when the victim's dead body was disinterred and it was found that death was not natural but homicidal, the story of extra judicial confession was introduced. Paras Ram (PW 3) finding his son's death homicidal made-up the story of extra judicial confession because of his impression that nobody else except the appellant could have committed the victim's murder. Paras Ram (PW 3) finding his son's death homicidal made-up the story of extra judicial confession because of his impression that nobody else except the appellant could have committed the victim's murder. Any way, this infirmity is of vital significance and leaves a void in the prosecution case. 10. An extra judicial confession, if cogently proved to have been made truly and voluntarily as an efficacious proof of guilt. As such, an extra judicial confession can be made the basis of conviction without any corroboration. The extra judicial confession is a question of fact and must be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the extra judicial confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. If the evidence of a witness before whom the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made is above reproach, the conviction of the accused can be safely based on it even without any corroboration. Here in the instant case, Paras Ram (PW 3) is the real father of the victim but did not disclose the fact of extrajudicial confession at the earlier available opportunity before the police. He disclosed it only when the victim's death was found homicidal. The other independent witnesses referred to above do not support the facts of extrajudicial confession. In these circumstances the testimony of PW 3 Paras Ram relating to the extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence. The learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the various aspects discussed above by us. PW 3 Paras Ram was present when the dead body was disinterred and the inquest report was prepared. His name appears in the inquest report. The judicial confession, according to him, was made before the inquest report was prepared, and yet at the time of inquest-proceedings he did not disclose the extrajudicial confession which is the backbone and main evidence of the prosecution case. The natural inference would, therefore, be that no extrajudicial confession was made before this witness. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect too. As such, we are unable to accept his finding that the accused made an extra judicial confession of her guilt before this witness. The extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made before this witness does not stand proved. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect too. As such, we are unable to accept his finding that the accused made an extra judicial confession of her guilt before this witness. The extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made before this witness does not stand proved. 11. We shall next deal with the recovery of the victim's dead body at the instance of the appellant. The Station House Officer Shri Banarsi Das (PW 10) deposed that when he reached the spot to make an enquiry under Section 174, Cr. P. C. the appellant was found there. She pointed the place which was dug.The victim's dead body was lying burried thereunder. Ex. P 4 was prepared by him showing that the place wherein the dead body was lying burried was shown and pointed out by the accused. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that since the victim's dead body was disinterred from a place shown and pointed out by the accused, a natural inference springs up that she had committed the murder. We are unable to accept his submission. A mere pointing of the dead body or the place where it is recovered has not been taken as sufficient to give rise to an inference that the murder must have been committed in all probabilities by the accused. This fact gives rise only to the inference that the accused had caused the disappearance of the evidence of the offence. An inference that the accused committed the murder cannot be drawn. In Omkar v. State of M.P. (1974 Cr. L.J. 1200) , a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to draw an inference of murder in a case where discovery of a dead body was made on the information furnished by accused but no other evidence connecting him with the murder was available. On such evidence, the accused was found guilty not under Section 302 but under Section 201,1. P. C. We have carefully gone through this judgment and we fully agree with the view taken therein. As such, in the instant case, the discovery of the dead body of the victim at the instance of the accused does not connect her with the murder of the victim It only shows that the dead body was burried by her. P. C. We have carefully gone through this judgment and we fully agree with the view taken therein. As such, in the instant case, the discovery of the dead body of the victim at the instance of the accused does not connect her with the murder of the victim It only shows that the dead body was burried by her. Since the death was homicidal, the offence made out as a result of this recovery is that punishable under Section 201, I. P. C. 12. It would be pertinent to point out that the dead body was recovered from the place shown and pointed out by the appellant. No disclosure statement was made by her under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Had there been the disclosure statement of the accused, the case might then have taken another shape. 13. The next set of evidence accepted by the trial court relates to the false statement of the appellant made by her before PW 3 Paras Ram that her husband had gone towards Bikaner and Suratgarh. The appellant is a poor, rustic village woman. When once she had burried her husband's deadbody she got frightened. It was her fear-sticken sense which induced her to make false statement. It is in our common knowledge that a fear-stricken person gets confused and bewildered and makes inconsistent and false statements in order to avoid the apprehended troubles to come to him or her in future. The false statements made by the accused about the whereabouts of her husband does not furnish positive proof of her complicity in the murder. Instances are common that at times the fear-stricken person acts and talks foolishly. While appreciating the fact of false statement, we should not forget the psychology of an illiterate, rustic and village woman especially when she is confused, bewildered and fear-stricken. 14. Lastly remains the evidence relating to motive. It was alleged that the accused got addicted to drink. He used to beat the appellant off and on. This prompted her to finish her husband. We are unable to accept this as a motive to incite her to commit the victim's murder. The couple was middle aged and had grown-up children including PW 7 Smt. Jamna aged about 20 years. The accused is a woman of 40 years in age and her husband was also of the same age. We are unable to accept this as a motive to incite her to commit the victim's murder. The couple was middle aged and had grown-up children including PW 7 Smt. Jamna aged about 20 years. The accused is a woman of 40 years in age and her husband was also of the same age. They had led nearly more than 20 years married-life. The beating by the husband, even if it was there, had became so common that it did not separate the couple from each other. They were living together for more than 20 years. In these circumstances it is difficult that the motive alleged by the prosecution provoked the appellant to commit the murder of her husband. 15. When the conviction is demanded on circumstantial evidence, the first essential requirement is that the various circumstances should stand proved. It is only thereafter that they should be weighed as an interrogated whole. When weighed, they should unmistakably point to one and one conclusion only that the accused and none other has perpetrated the alleged crime. Though circumstances do not lie but precaution should be taken not to draw artificial inferences because the appearance oi the circumstances might be deceptive. 16. In the instance case, the extra judicial confession does not stand proved. The motive is either not there and even if it is there, it is grossly inadequate. The accused made the false statement about the victim's going towards Suratgarh and Bikaner as she become extremely frightened. The only inculpating evidence against her is that the victim's deadbody was recovered at her instances. But this recovery of the deadbody at her instance is also not sufficient to raise a presumption that in all probabilities it was she who committed the murder. This fact only shows that she had caused the disappearance of the evidence of murder and does not connect her with the murder itself. As such we are unable to maintain the conviction of the appellant, under Section 302, I.P.C. She must be acquitted of the aforesaid offence. 17. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. As discussed above, the victim's deadbody was disinterred from a place shown and pointed out by her to the Investigating Officer. We have also held above that the death of the victim Sohan Lal was not natural but homicidal. In other words the offence of murder was committed. 17. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. As discussed above, the victim's deadbody was disinterred from a place shown and pointed out by her to the Investigating Officer. We have also held above that the death of the victim Sohan Lal was not natural but homicidal. In other words the offence of murder was committed. She burried his deadbody and thus caused the disappearance of evidence of the crime of murder. The victim's deadbody is a piece of evidence in a murder case. The concealing or disposing of the body of murdered person would, therefore, clearly amount to causing the disappearance of the evidence of the crime. If a person burried a corpse of a murdered victim, it can be easily said that he or she caused the evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear. The accused's pointing the place of burial and the recovery of the body as a consequence is a strong circumstance raising the inference of the guilt of the person under Section 201, I. P.C. 18. It was argued by the learned counsel that since the identity of the murder has not been established by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the appellant caused the evidence of the offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. As such no offence under Section 201, I. P. C. could be said to have been committed by the appellant. We are unable to accept the contention. It is not necessary for the conviction of an accused under Section 201, I.P.C. that he should be aware of the identity of the offender whom he intends to screen. It is not at all necessary that the intention to screen must be of a specified offender. An intention to screen even an unknown offender it sufficient to bring a charge under Section 201, I.P.C. at the door of the accused, Here in the instant case the appellant pointed out the place and got the victim's deadbody recovered at her instance lying burried thereunder. As such her conviction under Section 201, I.P.C. cannot be held to be uncalled for or erroneous. Id our view, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 201, I.P.C. There is no infirmity in her conviction under this section. 19. As such her conviction under Section 201, I.P.C. cannot be held to be uncalled for or erroneous. Id our view, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 201, I.P.C. There is no infirmity in her conviction under this section. 19. In the result, we partly allow the appeal of accused Smt. Mirchali, Her conviction and sentence under Section 302, I.P.C. are set aside and she is acquitted thereof. Her conviction and sentence under Section 201; I.P.C. are, however, maintained. She is in jail. Since she has served out the full term of sentence, she will be immediately set forth a', liberty if not wanted in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******