PALOK BASU, J, J. ( 1 ) CHANDRAPAL has filed this appeal against his conviction under section 302 I. P. C. and 2011. P. C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life and four years R. I. respectively as passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, on 5-5-1978 in Sessions Trial No. 77 A of 1977. ( 2 ) THE charge against the appellant Chandra- pal is that he had committed the murder of Lal Bhaiya sometimes between l9th/2oth November, 1976. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct testimony to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of Lala Bhaiya. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, Sigdar Singh, Harpal Singh, Jaipal Singh and Sukhdeo Singh were brothers out of whom Jaipal Singh died about 8 years ago, leaving Lala Bhaiya and Abhiman and three daughters, namely, Chandi, Rania and Kamla and ultimately the mother of the children also died about six years ago. At this Sukhdeo Singh alias Baboo Singh looked after the agricultural land and property belonging to those children. Sukhdeo Singh had four sons, namely Rampal, Indrapal, Chandrapal appellant and Him Lal. The marriage of Rania was to take place and so Lal Bhaiya demanded the ornaments kept with Chandrapal. At this Chandrapal told him, in the presence of Devi Din P. W. 1 that he should accompany him to Atarra where the ornaments arekept. On the next morning Chandrapal and Lala Bhaiya went to Atatra. Chandrapal had returned to the village but Lala Bhaiya did not and when Devi Din (P. W. 1) asked Chandrapal the whereabouts of Lala Bhaiya it was said that he would be coming next day. When Lala Bhlliya did not return for about a week Devi Din (P. W. 1) narrated the story to the sub-Inspector of Police who had come to the village on having heard rumours about the disappearance of Lal Bhaiya. It was noticed that Chandrapal was also absent from the village and when the sub-Inspector of Police went to the house of Chandrapal he wanted to escape by climbing the roof but was arrested and divulged to point out some articles. It was noticed that Chandrapal was also absent from the village and when the sub-Inspector of Police went to the house of Chandrapal he wanted to escape by climbing the roof but was arrested and divulged to point out some articles. One bloodstained T-Shrit, one Safi and one lathi were recovered at the pointing out of the accused from inside his house whereupon he took the sub- Inspector and other witnesses to a drain (nail a) of Baruie near the field of one Ram Singh and from inside the Nalla he took out a cloth-bundle in which the beheaded head of Lala Bhaiya, the Kurta , Banyain, towel and sickle were kept, was recovered. The witnesses recognised the garments as belonging to Lala Bhaiya. ( 4 ) A headless body was found by the Chowkidar on 20-12-1976 from the field of Darbari in village Haruie who lodged a first information report at the Police Outpost Sheorampur of Police Station Kotwali at 2-20 P. M. Besides body, a pair of shoes and lathi were also found. On its basis a case was registered under section 302 I. P. C. and investigation was taken up by S. I. Nirbhay Singh Tomar (P. W. 7 ). He reached the spot and completed the necessary formalities relating to the headless body and various memoranda were prepared regarding the recovery of the items such as blood stained earth etc. A site plan was also prepared. When he had come to village Mau Tilihra on 29-11-1976 and had met Devi Din as noted above, the fact of disappearance of Lala Bhaiya came to be known to him. Consequently he recorded the statements of the brothers and sisters of Lala Bhaiya who identified the articles as be longing to deceased Lala Bhaiya. On 4-12-1976 Chandrapal was arrested as noted above. ( 5 ) THE post mortem examination on the headless body of the unknown man was performed on 21-11-1976 at 2 P. M. while the post mortem examination of the head was performed on 6-12-1976at 10 A. M. both by Dr. R. L Gupta, then posted as Medical Superintended, Government Hospital Karvi, who has been examined as P. W. 2 in the case. On the basis of the circumstances gathered by the investigating Officer a charge sheet was filed against the appellant after due committal proceedings. R. L Gupta, then posted as Medical Superintended, Government Hospital Karvi, who has been examined as P. W. 2 in the case. On the basis of the circumstances gathered by the investigating Officer a charge sheet was filed against the appellant after due committal proceedings. ( 6 ) DURING the trial the prosecution examined Devi Din (P. W. 1), Rania (P. W. 3) and Ram Chandra (P. W. 4) who have deposed about the fact of making recovery on the pointing out of the appellant Chandrapal from the Nalla as also his house. P. W. 5 Basdeo has not only narrated the recovery at the pointing out of the appellant but has also referred to the family relationship and story of the also story of the prosecution relating to the death vi the parents of the deceased Lala Bhaiya. ( 7 ) THE appellant denied the prosecution case and attributed his false implication due to enmity. He had examined himself as D. W. 1 and said only this much that he had thought of examining some of the witness cited by the prosecution as his witness but could not do so as warrants or summonses were not legally issued to him and therefore no reliance should be placed on me prosecution case. But for this, no other oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant. The learned Trial Judge placed implicit reliance on the testimony of the four witnesses belonging to the village and the neighbouring village, took the case of me prosecution fully proved and convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above; hence this appeal. ( 8 ) SRI G. P. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant has placed the entire record and has argued that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant should be set aside. Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, supported the judgment. ( 9 ) DEVI Din (P. W. 1) has come out with a clear version and the manner in which Lala Bhaiya came close to the family of the witness and also narrated the incident relating to the demand of the ornaments and also of the fact that the appellant took Lala Bhaiya with him but returned alone and Lala Bhaiya was not seen for the last about a week. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this witness and the learned trial Judge has rightly placed reliance upon his testimony. He has also deposed about the identification of clothes at the police station and also about now Chandrapal had taken out those clothes from inside his cattle-shed. The T Shirt was identified by this witness as the same which Chandrapal was wearing while going to Atarra with Lala Bhaiya. He is also a witness in the recovery memo at the places shown by the appellant where form articles were recovered. It may, however, be noted that Devi Din (P. W. 1) is related to both the accused as well as the deceased. It is for this reason that he gives a clear description of the family happenings and; therefore, there is not in an iota of suggestion as to why he would be falsely deposing about the recovery made at the pointing out of appellant. ( 10 ) SMT. Rania (P. W. 2) is the sister of the deceased Lala Bhaiya. She is also a witness of recovery and said that when she, her brothers and other witnesses had gone to the Nalla along with the police party accompanied by the appellant they were struck aghast and started crying loudly on seeing the beheaded head of Lala Bhaiya. She was aged 15 years and should have been 13 years when the incident is said to have happened. The learned Trial Judge has noted her demeanour to be impressive. There is no reason to discard the testimony of the said eye-witness. ( 11 ) SIMILARLY Ram Chandra (P. W. 4) is also a witness of recovery of the articles from the cattleshed of the appellant. He has narrated in detail how the appellant voluntarily went and took out the articles after removing the chaff (bhoosa ). He has also spoken with confidence about the recovery of the head of Lala Bhaiya and the garments belonging to him from the Nalla at the pointing of the appellant. There is no justification at all for accepting the criticism of Sri Dixit that this witness should be disbelieved only he was a resident of adjoining village and did not belong to the village of the incident. There is no justification at all for accepting the criticism of Sri Dixit that this witness should be disbelieved only he was a resident of adjoining village and did not belong to the village of the incident. ( 12 ) BAESDEO (P. W. 5) has again, narrated the entire incident and has talked in detail about the ornaments which were promised to be returned by Chandrapal at the time of marriage of sister Rania. He had also given the evidence of having last seen the appellant with Lala Bhaiya deceased and then had deposed about the recovery of articles, head, clothes, sickle etc. as adverted to by the other witnesses. He has also no axe to grind and the learned Trial Judge rightly relied upon his testimony. ( 13 ) THE Investigating Officer Nirbhay Singh Tomar (P. W. 7) has detailed the circumstances which have been referred to above beginning with the news of absence of Lala Bhaiya ending with the recovery of the head and clothes of Lala Bhaiya at the pointing out of the appellant Chandrapal. ( 14 ) FROM the discussion aforesaid as rightly noted by the Trial Judge, the circumstances consistently proved against the appellant are that he was last seen with the deceased who also belonged to the same family but ha become an orphan, that the ornaments with the appellant were demanded by Lala Bhaiya in connection with the marriage of Rania which had been settledbefore, he took Lala Bhaiya on the pretext of giving ornaments in village Atarra but returned to his own village next day without Lala Bhaiya and that on asking as to why the deceased Lata Bhaiya was not accompanying the appellant he had said that he would be coming in a day or two and had gone to village Siklaudhi where he had his agricultural property from maternal uncles side. However, the Investigating Officer found that Lala Bhaiya had never visited Siklaudhi since his absence. The recovery of the incriminating articles was effected at the instance of the accused- appellant consisting of Lathi, T-Shirt and Pancha from his house (cattle-shed) as also recovery of the head, Dhoti. Banyain, Taulia. Kurta and Hansai from the Nalla at the pointing of the appellant. The recovery of the incriminating articles was effected at the instance of the accused- appellant consisting of Lathi, T-Shirt and Pancha from his house (cattle-shed) as also recovery of the head, Dhoti. Banyain, Taulia. Kurta and Hansai from the Nalla at the pointing of the appellant. There is no doubt that in view of the aforesaid circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellant, was responsible for committing the murder of Lala Bhaiya. The prosecution case against the appellant, therefore, stands fully proved and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Judge. ( 15 ) THE appeal of Chandrapal consequently fails and is dismissed. His conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court are maintained. He is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed. .