P. C. PATHAK. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the accused challenging his convictions under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian, Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in S. T. No. 43 of 1980. No separate sentence was passed under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) CHARGES against the accused were that on 11. 41980, at about 2 p. m. , in village Matia. district Rajoandgaon, he committed murders of his wife Smt. Jamunbai and daughter Ku. Pawanbai alias Pawanabai (hereinafter referred to as (Pawanbai), aged 11/2)ears and with the intention to came disappearance of the evidence burned the dead bodies in the sand of river Chumaria, situate between village Bagdai and Matia. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that the appellant accused. a resident of village Thailitola, was married to deceased Jamunbai, resident of village Joshi lamti about 13 years before. The wedlock gave birth to a female child Pawanbai about 2 years ago. Relations between Jamunbai and the accused and his mother Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1) were not cordhial due to which Jamunbai very often used to run away from the accuseds house. The accused was fed up and was eager to get rid of her. On the last occasion, after running away from the accused house, she stayed for about a year at her mothers place. Village Paochas at last brought Jamunbais and her daughter to the accusers house after settling the differences. During Jamunbais long absence, the accused with the help of his father planned to settle his second marriage with one Mahawati, daughter of Birjoo Kalar of Adejhar but it did not rnaterialise on the ground that Jamunbais the first wife, lived with him. ( 4 ) ON 11. 4. 1980, the accused along with tfle deceased and Pawanbai in her lap, left village Thaijitola to go 10 village Tongargaon allegedly to earn bread. They passed sometime in Tongargaon and thereafter left for another village Darn sometime in the night. It is alleged that on way to village Darn the accused strangulated Jamunbai and Pdwanbai and burned their dead bodies in the sand of river Ghumria, adjacent to village Matia. The accused thereafter left for Rajnandgann and from there to Bhilai. He returned to his village on 14. 4. It is alleged that on way to village Darn the accused strangulated Jamunbai and Pdwanbai and burned their dead bodies in the sand of river Ghumria, adjacent to village Matia. The accused thereafter left for Rajnandgann and from there to Bhilai. He returned to his village on 14. 4. I 980 and enquired of his father whether Jamunbai along with Pawanbai returned back to the village as per his instructions given during their journey at Rajnandgaon. Finding them absent, he pretended to go out in search of deceased. On 19. 4. 1980, he, in the company of his father, also made a report at the police station Chouki as to the disappearance of the deceased and the daughter. ( 5 ) ON 154. 1980, Sitaram (P. W. 1) a labourer working in Shukla Farm Bagdai, noticed a dead body of a female in the nearly rive r bed surrounded by dogs. Be passed on the information to Dayaram Solanki (P. W. 15) Farm Manager, who reported the matter to the police station Dangargaon. Shabaria (P. W. 29) A. S. L after recording a Marg intimation (Ex P. 15) went to the spot. He found a dead body of a female, mostly eaten away by dogs. Scalp with a bunch of long hair tied, he found pieces of a blue Sari, a yellow blouse, broken bangles and a (mala) necklace of black plastic and golden glass beads tied in a yellow thread. A key with a safety pin attached to the blouse also found. He held the inquest (Ex. p. 1) in presence of panch as and sealed the articles after seizure. ( 6 ) THE dead body was sent for postmortem. Dr. G. L Sharoff (P. W. 20) conducted the autopsy on 17. 4. 1980. He could Dot give any opinion as to the cause and time of death. However, he was definite that the body was that of a female. ( 7 ) ON 20-4-1980, constable Sharawan Kumar (PW. 26) was sent to the police Cbouki to asscertain if there was any report as to disappearance of person. He learnt that Jamunbai and her child Pawanbai had not returned to Thailitola. He returned with Kausljalbai, sister of the accused who identified the clothes, viz. , sari pieces and blouse as worn by lamunbai at the time, she left Thailitola. 26) was sent to the police Cbouki to asscertain if there was any report as to disappearance of person. He learnt that Jamunbai and her child Pawanbai had not returned to Thailitola. He returned with Kausljalbai, sister of the accused who identified the clothes, viz. , sari pieces and blouse as worn by lamunbai at the time, she left Thailitola. On 22 4 80, the Investigating Officer seized from the accused a copy of police-report dated 194. 1980 (Ex P 9) which contained signature of the accused vide seizure memo, Ex P. 9. By this report, the accused informed police station Council that he along with his wife Jamunbai were proceeding from. Rajnandgaon Bhilai. Since Jdmunbai did not agree he gave necessary expenses to her to travel back to village Thailitola by bus. She had, however, not returned to the village and is missing since then. ( 8 ) ON 23. 4. 1980, Jamunbais steel box was siezed from the possession of the accuseds father Ram Singh (P W. 7) vide Ex. P. 3. The box was locked which opened with the key (Art. 2-A) found along with the blouse seized from near the dead body. ( 9 ) AFTER obtaining the opinion from the experts and completing the investigation, a challan was put up against the accused for committing murders of his wife Jamunbai and child pawanbai under section 302 and causing disappearance of the evidence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 10 ) THE accused abjured his guilt. He did not examine any witness in his defence. ( 11 ) AFTER the close of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined Smt. Lilabai (C. W. I), mother of the accused as a court witness. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the evidence and the statement of the accused, the trial court found the accused guilty of committing the murder of his wife Jamunbai under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the evidence of murder to disappear. As regards the charge of murder of Pawanbai, trial Court gave benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. ( 13 ) THE State has not preferred any appeal against the accused acquittal of the charge of committing the murder of Pawanbai. As regards the charge of murder of Pawanbai, trial Court gave benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. ( 13 ) THE State has not preferred any appeal against the accused acquittal of the charge of committing the murder of Pawanbai. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appeflant argued that the case entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that the circumstances relied upon by the court below, though not proved beyond reasonable doubt, are not sufficient so as to point to the guilt of the appellant. ( 15 ) BEFORE we proceed to examine the merits of the case, we may state the law on the subject. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka1 it was observed: in cases in which the evidence is - purely of a circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they must be in their effect as to be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. The Supreme Court in Udaipal Singh v. State of U. P. 2 observed under: in cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one considers the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation if any of the accused, exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be considered human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. He may be held guilty in such a case on such circumstantial evidence. ( 16 ) BEARING the aforesaid principles in mind, we would examine if all the links in the chain of circumstances are proved against the accused and if so, whether they point to his guilt only. ( 17 ) THE first question for decision is whether Jamanbai, wife of the accused, died a homicidal death. It is not disputed by Ram Singh (P. W. 7) and Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1) parents of the accused, that Jamunbai, wife of the accused. ( 17 ) THE first question for decision is whether Jamanbai, wife of the accused, died a homicidal death. It is not disputed by Ram Singh (P. W. 7) and Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1) parents of the accused, that Jamunbai, wife of the accused. disappeared sometime in the month of Baisakh of. 1980 after the appellant had left for Bhilai. Ramsingh further admitted that he learnt after wards that Jamunbai and Ku. Pawanbai were buried in the river after killing them. The accused himself madea report Ex. P. 9. A) at the police-station Chouki, district Rajnandgaon as to her disappearance. In this examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal: Procedure, he admitted that the report (Ex. P. 9-A) bears his signature but denied tbat he made any such report. He could not deny whether this report was seized from him in the police, station Dongargao or not In answer to question no, 57, the accused stated that when he returned from Bhilai, his father enquired of his wife Jamunabai He and his father both set out in search of her. Finally, on advice of Patel and Kotwar, he made a report at the Police. Station Chouki. Soon thereafter, Madan came to his village and told him that a dead body was found and before he could go to verify the police arrested him. Ram Singh (P. W. 7) also admitted that he along with the accused went to make a report at the police station chouki about the disappearance of Jaumbai. Investigating officer, Saharia (PW. 2) stated that at the spot, he found a dead body of a female mostly eaten away by dogs Nearby he found a bunch of long hair attached to a part of scalp tied with a ribbon, a torn blouse, a key in its pocket and a necklace with three rows of black and golden beads as mentioned in inquest report, Ex. P-I. ( 18 ) ON a memorandum (Ex. P-6) under section 27 of the Evidence, Act dated 22. 4. 1980 given by the accused, broken bangles and a piece of sari were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-7. Keshoram (P. W. 11) identified the blouse, Article l-E, as having been stitched for deceased Jamunbai. The blouse was ajso identified by Baharoo (P. W. 13), father of the deceased. 4. 1980 given by the accused, broken bangles and a piece of sari were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-7. Keshoram (P. W. 11) identified the blouse, Article l-E, as having been stitched for deceased Jamunbai. The blouse was ajso identified by Baharoo (P. W. 13), father of the deceased. The sari Articles A, B, C and D, were identified by Sunderjal (P. W. 5), Surajlal (P. W. 10), Manoharlal (P. W. 12) and Babroo (PW. 13) and the blouse (Article-I. E) was identified by Keshoram (P. W. 11) Manoharlal (P. W. 12) and Bahroo (P. W. 13) as the dress of deceased. Exhbit P. S is the identification memo. ( 19 ) DR. (Mrs.) Pandbar (P. W. 21) a medical specialist in Anatomy, examined the scapula, pelvic bones, femur tibia. fibula and tarsal joint o ( the body sent to her for opinion. She opined that the bones were human origin of a female, aged between 16 and 2s years. Her report is Ex. P-21a. ( 20 ) BAHAROO (P. W. 13) also stated Jamunbai has disappeared and was not traceable at all. Most clinching piece of evidence is the key (Article 2-A) found in the pocket of the blouse (Article I. E) near the dead body and the said key successfully opened the lock of a box belonging to the deceased and seized from the possession of Ram Singh (P W. 7) father of the accused as testified by Bhagirathi (P. W. 3) and Dr. Shro (P. W 20) vide Ex. P. 4. ( 21 ) SUNDERLAL (P. W. 5) stated that about two miles ahead of villages Joratarai and Bandba, he had seen the accused and deceased Jamunbai with female child in the lap He had accosted Jamunbai and asked where was she going Jamunbai replied to him that she would go to that place where husband (Accused) would take her. The witness had seen her in a sound health and was carrying the child Pawanbai in her lap. Thereafter only her dead body was found on 164. 1980) ( 22 ) FROM the above evidence, there is no escape from the conclusion that the dead body found in the sandy bed of Chumaria river on 164. 1980 was that of deceased Jamunbai who died a homicidal death. Thereafter only her dead body was found on 164. 1980) ( 22 ) FROM the above evidence, there is no escape from the conclusion that the dead body found in the sandy bed of Chumaria river on 164. 1980 was that of deceased Jamunbai who died a homicidal death. ( 23 ) THE further question is whether the prosecution has proved chain of circumstances so as to hold the appellant responsible for the death of Jamunbai. ( 24 ) THE first circumstances is strained relation between the deceased and the appellant and his mother Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1 ). Ram Singh (P. W. 7) admitted that the deceased very often used to go to her mothers place. Although he denied that there used to be any quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law, he admitted that after living in her mothers place or about a year, she was brought back by the Panchas Dipawali and they had instructed him to keep her properly. Rameshwar (P. W. 19) stated that on account of quarrels with her mother-in-law, Jamunbai used to come back to her mothers place. ( 25 ) SURAJLAL (P. W. 10) and Manoharlal were the Panchas who accompanied her during Dipawali to the house of the appellant After convening a Panchayat of the persons of the village and settling all disputes, they left Jamunbai with the appellant with the instructions not to foresake her in. laws place again. The statement of Baharoo (P. W. 13), father of the deceased, is also to the same effect. ( 26 ) FROM the above evidence, it is clear that the deceased Jamunbai was married to the appellant and on account of family disputes between the deceased on one side and the appellant his mother on the other, the deceased very often used to run away to her mothers place. During Dipawali preceding her death, she was brought back and finally left in the house of the appellant after settling their previous differences. ( 27 ) RAM Singh (P. W. 7) admitted that the appellant had no liking for the deceased and would not like to keep her but the deceased always refused to abandon the house. During Dipawali preceding her death, she was brought back and finally left in the house of the appellant after settling their previous differences. ( 27 ) RAM Singh (P. W. 7) admitted that the appellant had no liking for the deceased and would not like to keep her but the deceased always refused to abandon the house. Further admitted that he had gone to village Adejhar to settle the second marriage of the appellant with Mahabati, daughter of Birjoo Kalar but Birjoo turned down the proposal on the sole ground that the first wife Jamunbai was already living with the appellant. He also admitted that he went for negotiation of the second marriage sometime before the deceased as brought to his house during D5pawali. This is fully corroborated by Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1 ). ( 28 ) RAM Singh (P W. 7) stated that when the appellant left the house, be bad gone out of his house. On return, when be did not find the appellant, his wife and the child Pawanbai, upon his inquiry, Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1) had disclosed that the appellant was demanding money for going to Bhii. She had, however, no money to give. Therefore, the appellant left on foot. Ever since the appellant left the house for Bhilai, Jamunbai and Ku Pawanbai were also not seen in the house, Smt. Lilabai corroborated the statement of Ramsingh. In cross examination, she admitted that the appellant left the house with a bag only, whereas Jamunbai did not carry any luggage except her child Pawanbai. ( 29 ) FROM the evidence of Ram Singh (PW. 7) and Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1), it is proved beyond doubt that the Appellant, in the company of the deceased Jamunbai and child Pawanbhai, left for Bhilai. ( 30 ) WE have already seen that Sunderlal (p. W. 5) had seen the appellant in the company of the deceased carrying her child Pawanbai. He also identified pieces of Sari (Arts A-B. C. and D) as the same Sari which the deceased was wearing. He further witnessed opening of the lock by Dr. Shri (P. W. 20) with the key recovered from the blouse lying besides the dead body in the river bed. The box contained articles and for house hold goods. He also identified pieces of Sari (Arts A-B. C. and D) as the same Sari which the deceased was wearing. He further witnessed opening of the lock by Dr. Shri (P. W. 20) with the key recovered from the blouse lying besides the dead body in the river bed. The box contained articles and for house hold goods. ( 31 ) SHYAMLAL P. W. 17), a resident of village Matia, carried business of selling fruits at Dongargaon which is at a distance of one km. from village Matia. The river Ghumaria flows by the side of village matia, the appellant purchased oranges from Shyamlal (p. W. 17) and gave them to the deceased. The deceased was then sitting with her child. ( 32 ) NEXT witness Bhagbali Ram (P. W. 18) resided at Rajnandgaon. He is a near relation of the appellant the appellant all alone went to his house on 12. 4. 19w in the morning. Next morning he left for Bhilai. Four days after his departure, Ram Singh (P. W. 7) also nicked named as Tatu had come to him and enquired whether the appellant had visited him alone or with the deceased. He told him that the appellant had come all alone. ( 33 ) THE appellant, in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in answer to question No. 56 admitted to have gone to the house of Bhagbali, Ram (PW 18) and from there he left for Bhilai After passing two days at Bhilai, he returned to his village hailitola. ( 34 ) IN this village, the appellant Feigned ignorance as to the where about of the deceased. He also misinformed his father that the deceased with her child was left at Rajnand gaon bus stand to return back to the village. Upon his words, Ram Singh (P. W. 7) went from place to place to search her out. Finally both, on the alleged advice of the Patel and the Kotwar, lodged the report Ex. P. 9. A at the police station Chowki that the deceased was missing. Babusingh (P. W. 27), head constable of police-station Chouki, also proved the report, Ex. P-9a. ( 35 ) FROM the aforesaid proved circumstances, placed on records it is clear that: (i) The appellant left his village Thailitola on 11. 4. 1980 in the company of the deceased. P. 9. A at the police station Chowki that the deceased was missing. Babusingh (P. W. 27), head constable of police-station Chouki, also proved the report, Ex. P-9a. ( 35 ) FROM the aforesaid proved circumstances, placed on records it is clear that: (i) The appellant left his village Thailitola on 11. 4. 1980 in the company of the deceased. Jamunbai who also carried her child Pawanbai. He told his mother that he was going to Bhilai to earn livelihood. The appellant merely carried a bag (Jhola) with him while the deceased did not carry an}thing except the child. She left her box behind in the house of her in-laws, Ramsingh (P. W. 7) and Smt. Lilabai (C. W. 1 ). (ii) the deceased with her child was last seen in the company of the appellant be Shyamlal (P. W17) at Dongargaon fruit lstall on 11. 4. 80 (iii) the morning of 12. 4. 1980, the appellant all alone had gone to the house of Bhaghali Ram (P. W.) a Rajr. andgaon and just before that the appellant killed the deceased and in order to hide his guilt burned the dead in the bed of river Ghumaria. (iv) From Rajnandgaon, the appellant led away to Bhilai and returned to his own village on 14th April 1980 (vi) In order to create evidence of his innocence, he misinformed his parents that he had left the deceased and the child in the bus-stand, at Rajnandgaon to undertake a journey back to Thailitola by the said bus. (vii) In his aim to create further false evidence, be misguided his father to go to different places in search of the deceased and the child. (viii) During me alleged search, the appellant learnt about the recovery of a dead body. It was only thereafter on 19 4. 1980, the appellant-along with his father made a false report (Ex. p. 9-A) at police station Chouki as to the alleged disappearance of the deceased after they were allegedly left at the bus stand Rajnandgaon. (ix) In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; he had denied the facts proved beyond doubt, namely, the seizure, of the box belonging to the deceased, the look after die key, sari pieces and the blouse worn by the deceased. (ix) In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; he had denied the facts proved beyond doubt, namely, the seizure, of the box belonging to the deceased, the look after die key, sari pieces and the blouse worn by the deceased. He avoided td give straight as when he had questioned about the presence of blood on the surplices, the blouse, the thread and his clothes. ( 36 ) FROM these circumstances, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant. There is no scope for the argument that the links are missing or that the chain is not complete. On account of family dispute, the deceased very often used to run away to her mothers place. The appellant was fed up with the deceased on account of disputes and her running away and wanted to got rid of her. The deceased refused to oblige her. The appellant intended to enter into a second marriage but this plan was nipped in the bud by the girls father on the ground that he would not give his daughter so long as the deceased continued to live with him as his wife. In order to get rid ocher, the appellant planned his trip to Bhijai under a false pretext of going out in search of earning bread. This place could have been timely frustrated had any one intercepted him by asking as to how is that he was going out in search of bread without any luggage or articles of daily necessities. With evil design, he carried the d. ceased and the child from place to place even during night on 114 1980. Since the child was hardly 10 years old only and was being carried by the deceased in her hp, the presumption is that the appellant must have killed the child as well. The learned trial court was misled by the fact that dead body of the child was not recovered, and therefore, he gave him benefit of doubt. The State did not file an appeal against his acquittal for murder of the child. We are therefore, help less to do anything in that regard The appellant committed a cold blooded murder of his wife and innocent child with an evil design to get rid of them in order to pacify his lust for second marriage. The State did not file an appeal against his acquittal for murder of the child. We are therefore, help less to do anything in that regard The appellant committed a cold blooded murder of his wife and innocent child with an evil design to get rid of them in order to pacify his lust for second marriage. ( 37 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal fails and is here- dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .