JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-9-86, passed by the District' and Sessions Judge, Churu, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Accused-appellants Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski were tried for committing the murder of Prabbu Ram - the brother of accused Chhotu Singh and the husband of accused-appellant Smt. Phooski - on 5-10-85 at about 11.00 p.m. in their field and concealed the dead body of Prabhu Singh in that very field by digging a pit of 4 and 1/2 feet. According to the prosecution case, deceased Prabbu Singh, alongwith his wife Smt. Phooski (accused-appellant) on 5-10-84, at 2.00 p.m., had gone to his field. At about 5.00 p.m. accused-appellant Chhotu Singh the brother of deceased Prabhu Singh went there. On 6-10-84, in the morning, accused-appellant Smt. Phooski came all alone to the village, which raised a suspicion in the minds of PW 1 Bag Singh and PW 2 Dhoodh Singh, who were sitting in the gate of the house of Loon Singh the father of deceased Prabhu Singh. They made an enquiry from Smt. Phooski through PW 9 Hanuman regarding the whereabouts of Prabhu Singh, whereupon Smt. Phooski informed PW 9 Hanuman that Prabhu Singh had gone to Hanumangarh for his medical treatment. This explanation given by accused-appellant Smt. Phooski was not believed by them and on further enquiry it was disclosed by her that she and accused-appellant Chhotu Singh have committed the murder of Prabhu Singh by throttling, but she did not disclose the whereabouts of the dead body of Prabhu Singh PW 1 Bag Singh and PW 2 Dhoodh Singh thereafter went to Police Station, Ratangarh, and lodged the F.I.R., which was registered at the police Station at 4.15 p.m. on 7-10-84. Accused Chhotu Singh, vide EX.P.38 and accused Phooski, vide Ex.P. 39, on 8.10.84, gave information's under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that they have concealed the dead body of Prabhu Singh in the field after digging a pit there. The Police reported the matter to PW 7 Mr. Jagdish Chandra the Executive Magistrate cum S.D.O. Ratangarh and proceeded to the place of the occurrence Jagdish Chandra S.D.O. alongwith. Mr. Sumer Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (who has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution) and in the presence of the Jagdish Chandra D.S.O. and Deputy Superintendent of Police and PW 4 Khem Chand the Photographer and PW 3 Major Nand Singh, recovered the dead body of prabhu Singh on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellants. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. It is against the judgment dated 9-9- 86, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for the offences under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. that the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. It Is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case and there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the accused- appellants with the crime. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the story of illicit relations, put-forth by the prosecution, has wrongly been believed by the learned trial Court. The circumstance of extra judicial confession alleged to be made by the appellants,does not stand proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution and the learned lower Court has wrongly relied-upon the alleged extra judicial confession. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, no recovery of the dead body of Prabhu Singh was made at the instance of the accused-appellants because the dead body of Prabhu Singh had already been recovered before the alleged information by the appellants were given and there was no question of keeping secret of concealing the dead body when the accused had already disclosed to the witnesses that they had murdered Prabhu Singh and, therefore, the alleged recovery of the dead body of Prabhu Singh cannot be said to have been made at the instance of the accused- appellants. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, which have been relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court, are: (I) the Illicit relations of Smt. Phooski with accused-appellant Chhotu Singh who is her brother-in-law; (ii) the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW 9 Hanuman in the presence of PW 1 Beg Singh and PW 2 Dhoodh Singh; and (iii) the recovery of the dead body of prabhu Singh on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellants from a pit in the field. 6. The firs circumstance, which has been relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the evidence of illicit relations between the accused-appellants. Both the accused are the real brother-in-law and sister in law in relation as Smt. Phooski was married to deceased Prabhu Singh who was the brother of accused Chhotu Singh. The evidence which has been produced by the prosecution on this aspect is that of PW 1 Beg Singh and PW 2 Dhoodh Singh. PW 1 Beg Singh has stated that Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski had illicit relations before the incident and, therefore, they killed Prabhu Singh. This witness, in the cross-examination, has stated that it was only after the death of Prabhu Singh that he came to know that the .relations between accused Chhotu Singh and accused Smt. Phooski were Illicit. He has no personal knowledge regarding the alleged illicit relations between the two accused earlier to the death of Prabhu Singh and it is only on the basis of conjecture information has been drawn regarding this illicit relations between the accused. The evidence of this witness, so far as the illicit relations between the accused are concerned, does not inspire confidence. PW 2 Dhoodh Singh has, also, stated that Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski had illicit relations and according to him it was on account of this fact that Prabhu Singh was killed by these accused. The evidence of this witness, so far as the illicit relations between the accused are concerned, does not inspire confidence. PW 2 Dhoodh Singh has, also, stated that Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski had illicit relations and according to him it was on account of this fact that Prabhu Singh was killed by these accused. In the cross-examination he had admitted that Prabhu Singh used to go to field alongwith Smt. Phooski and there were no quarrel between Prabhu Singh and accused Smt. Phooski as neither he heard about any quarrel between them nor had seen the same. He has, also, admitted that he made the statement regarding the illicit relations between the accused on the basis of the suspicion. The evidence of this witness regarding the illicit relations between the accused is sketchy and is not believable. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove this circumstance against the accused and we are of the opinion that the learned trials Court was not justified in believing this evidence against the accused- appellants. 7. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW 9 Hanuman in the presence of PW 1 Beg Singh PW 2 Dhoodh Singh and PW 6 Loon Singh. The evidence, produced by the prosecution in this respect, consists of the evidence of four witnesses. PW 1 Beg Singh has stated that when Smt. Phooski came to the house all-alone, a suspicion arose and, therefore, he and Loon Singh - the father of deceased Prabhu Singh enquired from Smt. Phooski through PW 9 Hanuman regarding the whereabouts of Prabhu Singh and then Smt. Phooski made a declaration before PW 9 Hanuman that she and accused Chhotu Singh had killed Prabhu Singh by throttling. In the cross-examination the evidence of this witness has not been shaken on this point. The extra-judicial confession was made to this witness in the evening of 6th and thereafter he went to lodge the report and the fact of making this extra judicial confession finds mention in the F.I.R. lodged by him. PW 2 Dhoodh Singh has, also, stated that on 6-10-84, he alongwith PW 1 Beg Singh and PW 9 Hanuman was sitting in the house of Loon Singh. Smt. Phooski came there and Chhotu Singh, also, came there after ten-fifteen minutes. PW 2 Dhoodh Singh has, also, stated that on 6-10-84, he alongwith PW 1 Beg Singh and PW 9 Hanuman was sitting in the house of Loon Singh. Smt. Phooski came there and Chhotu Singh, also, came there after ten-fifteen minutes. PW 1 Beg Singh enquired from Smt. Phooski through him why she had come all alone and when he made an enquiry from Smt. Phooski she told that Prabhu Singh had gone to Hanumangarh as he became ill. Beg Singh thereupon asked that if he became ill then he should have gone to Hanumangarh after informing them. They did not believe the version given by Sint. Phooski and again made an enquiry whereupon Smt. Phooski told that Prabhu Singh had gone to Hanumangarh. Thereafter Beg Singh himself went to the field in search of Prabhu Singh but he was not available there and, therefore, he returned back from the field. Beg Singh again enquired from accused Chhotu Singh regarding the whereabouts of Prabhu Singh and then Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski admitted their guilt and stated that they had killed Prabhu Singh. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted on this witness, also, but his testimony remained unshaken. PW 6 Loon Singh the father of the deceased and accused Chhotu Singh and the father-in-law of accused Smt. Phooski has stated that PW 9 Hanuman informed him on the next day that accused Chhotu singh and Smt. Phooski had murdered Prabhu Singh in the field. In the cross-examination he has again reiterated his statement and stated that on the next day he was informed by Hanuman that Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski had murdered Prabhu Singh and prior to that neither Beg Singh nor Dhoodh Singh informed him regarding. the death of Prabhu Singh. PW 9 Hanuman is the brother of deceased Prabhu Singh as well as the accused-appellant Chhotu Singh and the brother-in-law of accused Smt. Phooski. In the examination-in chief he has denied the fact of making the extra judicial confession by the accused before him and he was declared hostile. Though he has been declared hostile but merely by declaring him hostile his whole evidence cannot be wiped off and that part of his evidence,which is found reliable, can be relied-upon. In the examination-in chief he has denied the fact of making the extra judicial confession by the accused before him and he was declared hostile. Though he has been declared hostile but merely by declaring him hostile his whole evidence cannot be wiped off and that part of his evidence,which is found reliable, can be relied-upon. In the cross- examination he has admitted that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he stated that Chhotu Singh and Smt. Phooski, in his presence, on asking by Beg Singh and Dhoodh Singh, informed that Prabhu Singh had gone to Hanumangarh for taking medicines as he became ill, whereupon Beg Singh and Dhoodh Singh asked the accused that they were telling the truth. Thereafter accused Chhotu Singh ran from that place and accused Smt. Phooski admitted that she and Chhotu Singh had killed Prabhu Singh by throttling. This witness, being the brother of accused Chhotu Singh, tried to save him during the trial but from the evidence of PW 1 Beg Singh, PW 2 Dhoodh Singh, PW 6 Loon Singh and PW 9 Hanuman, it proved beyond a reasonable manner of doubt that both the accused made a clean breast before Hanuman in the presence of PW 1 Beg Singh and PW 2 Dhoodh Singh that they had committed the murder of Prabhu Singh in the field by throttling him. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove this circumstance against the accused - appellants and the learned Sessions Judge was justified in believing this circumstance against the accused-appellants. 8. The last circumstance, which has been relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the recovery of the dead body of deceased Prabhu Singh on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellants. EX.P.38-A is the information given by accused Chhotu Singh on 8- 10-84 at 6.30 p.m. regarding the place where the dead body of deceased Prabhu Singh was buried by them. EX.P.39 is the information given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by accused Smt. Phooski on 8-10-84 at 6.45 p.m. regarding the place where the dead body of Prabhu Singh was concealed and buried by them. EX.P.39 is the information given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by accused Smt. Phooski on 8-10-84 at 6.45 p.m. regarding the place where the dead body of Prabhu Singh was concealed and buried by them. It is on the in formations EX.P.38-A and EX.P.39, given by the accused and pointing out the place where the dead body of Prabhu Singh was buried by them, in the presence of PW 1 Beg Singh, PW 2 Dhoodh Singh, PW 3 Major Nand Singh and PW 7 Mr. Jagdish chandra, S.D.O. Ratangarh, that the place shown by them was dug and the dead body and other incriminating materials were recovered from the field. The dead body was identified to be that of Prabhu Singh. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and the evidence of PW 10 Jogendra Singh, S.H.O., the recovery of the dead body of Prabhu Singh from a pit in the field possessed by Loon Singh and which was in the cultivatory possession of them and Prabhu Singh and Smt. Phooski used to go and which fact stands proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt. This circumstance, also, stands proved against the accused-appellants and the learned trial Court was justified in believing this circumstance against the accused-appellants. 9. The two circumstances,i.e., the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellants and the recovery of the dead body of deceased Prabhu Singh on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellants, complete the chain of the prosecution case and exclude any presumption of innocence of the accused-appellants. These circumstances conclusively establish the only hypothesis that these were the accused-appellants who were the perpetrators of the crime of committing the murder of Prabhu Singh and concealing his dead body in the field. The offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., thus, stand proved against both the accused-appellants and, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused- appellants for these offences and the judgment, passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******