Judgment : N.L. Ganguly, J. 1. THIS Government appeal is directed against the Judgment of acquittal by Sri B. K. Rathi, IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffar nagar dated 31.7.1979 acquitting Harendra, Smt. Bala and Braham Pal accused persons of the charges under Sections 302/201, 302/34 and 302/114, I.P.C. 2. THE prosecution case was investigated by the police on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 9.6.1977 lodged by Veer Sen, informant. Smt. Anarkali, the victim, was the widow of Yash Pal, who was the real uncle of Veer Sen, complainant. Accused Braham Pal is the real brother of the deceased victim. Smt. Anarkali. Braham Pal is reported to be dead during the pendency of the appeal, which fact was verified after enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar nagar. Since Braham Pal is reported to be dead, the appeal against him has already been abated by the order of this Court. Braham Pal lived with his sister Smt. Anarkali and was looking after her property since after the death of her husband. Accused Smt. Bala is the wife of Braham Pal and accused Harendra is the nephew of Braham Pal. They all lived in the house of Smt. Anarkali. The relations between Braham Pal and Smt. Anarkali had become strained before the incident on account of illicit relations, which had developed between Harendra and Smt. Bala. The deceased Smt. Anarkali had objection to such illicit relations continuing. Sher Din and Nakkal are said to be the servants of Smt. Anarkali. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 2.30 a.m. between the nights of 6/7.6.1977. It is alleged that a day prior to the incident, Braham Pal, accused had met Sher Din and had informed Sher Din P.W. 3 that his relations with Smt. Anarkali had become strained and she had said that she would transfer her land to Dharam Pal, father of Veer Sen, informant-complainant. Braham Pal on 6.6.1977 is alleged to have met Sher Din and asked him to come to his house in the evening. Sher Din went to his house in the evening. Braham Pal said to him that he wanted to murder Smt. Anarkali. Sher Din was told by Braham Pal that dispute regarding mutation of land was pending and he was apprehending that Smt. Anarkali may transfer the land in favour of Dharam Pal. Sher Din went to his house in the evening. Braham Pal said to him that he wanted to murder Smt. Anarkali. Sher Din was told by Braham Pal that dispute regarding mutation of land was pending and he was apprehending that Smt. Anarkali may transfer the land in favour of Dharam Pal. Sher Din declined to help Braham Pal in murdering Smt. Anarkali. Braham Pal had assured to pay Rs. 2,000 and two quintals of wheat to Sher Din. In this manner, the scheme for murder of Smt. Anarkali was hatched. 3. IN between the nights of 6/7.6.1977 at about 2.30 a.m., Braham Pal had called Sher Din to his house. Smt. Anarkali was sleeping in the room. Smt. Bala accused caught hold of her feet and accused Harendra pressed her neck. Shrieks were heard by Surendra P.W. 4, whose house is said to be near the house of Smt. Anarkali. Per chance, Surendra heard the shrieks at that time as he had come out of his house to pass urine. It is said that Sher Din had pressed the mouth of Smt. Anarkali and she became unconscious. Harendra brought a rope, which was tied around the neck of the deceased and pulled by Harendra and Sher Din. Braham Pal was watching and witnessing the killing while standing at the door of the room. Smt. Anarkali had died of strangulation. Harendra and Sher Din told Braham Pal that she had died. Braham Pal thereafter asked Sher Din to throw the dead body in the field, which Sher Din refused to do. Harendra then gave Rs. 200 to him. Smt. Bala and Harendra put the dead body in the Kotha of Bhoosa. Harendra and Sher Din left the house and Smt. Bala closed the door. 4. WHEN Harendra and Sher Din had reached the door of Smt. Anarkali, Veer Sen, informant and his brother Hart Ratan were returning at about 3 a.m. after irrigating their field. Veer Sen had asked Sher Din as to why he had come to the house of Smt. Anarkali at that hour and Sher Din had replied that he had come with an urgent work. Harendra also had given similar reply. Veer Sen and Hari Ratan left for their house and Sher Din also went to his house. Veer Sen had asked Sher Din as to why he had come to the house of Smt. Anarkali at that hour and Sher Din had replied that he had come with an urgent work. Harendra also had given similar reply. Veer Sen and Hari Ratan left for their house and Sher Din also went to his house. On the following day at about 8 a.m. Veer Sen met Sher Din P.W. 4 and told him regarding meeting of Sher Din at the house of Anarkali at 3 a.m. Surendra had also told to have heard the shrieks of Smt. Anarkali at about 2.30 a.m. Accused Harendra had reached the lane where Surendra and Veer Sen were talking. Veer Sen had asked Harendra about Smt. Anarkali. Harendra had replied that she had gone to her father's house at village Sherpura Luhara. Veer Sen became suspicious, after hearing Surendra P.W. that he had heard shrieks and noise at 2.30 a.m. from the house of Smt. Anarkali and Sher Din was also seen coming out of that house at that odd hours. Veer Sen left for village Sherpura Luhara to enquire about Smt. Anarkali and met her father Chandra Bhan there. The father of Smt. Anarkali had informed that she had not gone there. Veer Sen after returning from village Sherpura Luhara at 8 p.m. told his father the entire incident and had also told other persons of the village. 5. IT is alleged that Harendra accused called Sher Din the following night and asked him to throw the dead body of the deceased victim in the field of Dharam Pal. Sher Din declined. Then Harendra asked him to bury the dead body in the kitchen. Sher Din and Harendra dug a pit in the kitchen. Smt. Bala and Harendra put the dead body in that pit made in the kitchen, added some salt over the dead body and filled the pit. Thereafter accused Smt. Bala plastered the kitchen with earth and put her oven over the covered pit. IT is said that Sher Din went away, left the village and had gone to village Khatoli. An F.I.R. was lodged by Veer Sen at the police station, Thana Bhawan. The F.I.R. was marked as Ext. Ka. Thereafter accused Smt. Bala plastered the kitchen with earth and put her oven over the covered pit. IT is said that Sher Din went away, left the village and had gone to village Khatoli. An F.I.R. was lodged by Veer Sen at the police station, Thana Bhawan. The F.I.R. was marked as Ext. Ka. 1, G.D. entry was made on the basis of the F.I.R at the police station by Head Constable Shamraj Singh at 9.30 a.m. Virendra Singh P.W. 11, Station Officer of the Police Station started investigation on the basis of the report and visited the village of occurrence, recorded the statement of Veer Sen and Surendra. The Station Officer reached the house of the victim Smt. Anarkali where Smt. Bala and Harendra were present, whom he interrogated. They informed that the dead body of Smt. Anarkali had been buried by them in the kitchen in the presence of P.W. 5 Bhopal and Mahipal. On their pointing out, the place where the dead body was buried, Puran P.W. 7 and Parmal dug the place and the dead body of Smt. Anarkali was taken out in their presence. P.W. 6 Ram Chandra witnessed the recovery of the dead body. A recovery memo was prepared and marked as Ext. Ka. 6 at 2.30 p.m. by Virendra Singh. S. O. Satya Pal constable was sent to fetch the necessary papers from the police station. Samples of earth and salt stained earth were taken, which were marked as Exts. 2 and 3 and a memo Ext. Ka. 7 was prepared for the same. Inquest report was prepared after the papers from the police station were obtained from constable Satya Pal. Then the Panchayatnama Ext. Ka. 8 was prepared. The diagram (Naksha Nash) of the dead body Ext. Ka. 13 was also prepared. The dead body was sealed and sent for post-mortem examination through constable Gyan Singh P.W. 9 and Bir Singh, Home Guard along with the challan. Ext. Ka. 15 letter of the post-mortem examination was prepared by S. O. Virendra Singh. Site-plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. The S. O. Virendra Singh returned to the police station along with accused Smt. Bala and Harendra. The case was converted under Section 302/201 I.P.C. by Shamraj Singh, Head Constable P.W. 8 by making entry in the general diary Ext. Ka. 10. 6. Site-plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. The S. O. Virendra Singh returned to the police station along with accused Smt. Bala and Harendra. The case was converted under Section 302/201 I.P.C. by Shamraj Singh, Head Constable P.W. 8 by making entry in the general diary Ext. Ka. 10. 6. THE post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. A. K. Gupta P.W. 12 on 10.6.1977 at 2.30 p.m. The post-mortem report is proved and marked as Ext. Ka. 17. The post-mortem report indicated the age of the deceased to be about 50 years and the death was about three days before the post-mortem examination. The body of the deceased was average. Rigor mortis was not present and the body was in advanced stage of decomposition. It was swollen. Face was blotted ; abdomen was distended ; skin was peeling off at most of the places ; hairs and nails were loose ; maggots were crawling all over the body. Mud was present on the face and all over the body. The particles of Bhoosa were adhered all over the body. Pieces of salt were also found on the body. A rope Ext. 1 was found tightly tied in two rounds around the neck ; tongue was protruding out of the mouth and was swollen ; lips and nails were bluish. The rope was removed and sealed separately. There was ligature mark all round the neck which was well defined, slightly depressed 1", in breadth below the thypoid cartilage, base of mark was pale and reddish and, ecchymosised under the legature mark. Internal examination showed that both lungs and trachea, kidney and spleen were congested. The death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Approximately the death was estimated to have been caused between the nights of 6/7.6.1977. Clothes were also sealed and handed over to the constable. 7. THE remaining investigation was done by Sri R. P. Dubey P.W. 10. On 3.8.1977 he visited village Gandevla and recorded statements of Bhopal, Ram Chandra, Puran and others. Sher Din was not available. Charge-sheet was submitted on 8.9.1977 against Harendira, Bala and Sher Din. It has come in evidence that after 5 or 7 days of the incident Braham Pal had visited village Khatoli and he had informed Sher Din that the dead body has been recovered. Sher Din was not available. Charge-sheet was submitted on 8.9.1977 against Harendira, Bala and Sher Din. It has come in evidence that after 5 or 7 days of the incident Braham Pal had visited village Khatoli and he had informed Sher Din that the dead body has been recovered. Braham Pal had asked him not to come to the village. He has paid Rs. 50 Sher Din. Sher Din lived there in village Khatoli for five months. Thereafter he came to his village to look after his family. He was arrested by S.I., R. P. Dubey. Sri Dubey interrogated him on the same day. Sher Din is said to have confessed his guilt before Sri Dubey S. I. Sri Dubey S.I. sent a report dated 28.10.1977 to the Magistrate for recording the confessional statement of Sher Din, which was recorded by Sri B. B. S. Chaudhari, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 9.11.1977. An order dated 10.12.1977 Ext. Ka. 3 on the basis of the police report and confessional statement of Sher Din was passed tendering pardon under Section 306, Cr. P.C. on the condition of his making full and true statement regarding the incident. Sher Din is said to have moved an application Ext. Ka. 4 for tendering pardon to him on the above condition. He was tendered pardon by the order Ext. Ka. 5 by Sri B. B. S. Chaudhari, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar nagar. He was made an approver. The remaining investigation of the case was done by Sri Vishwanath Chauhan, S. O. P.W. 13. Sri Chauhan S. O. had recorded the statement of Sher Din under Section 164, Cr. P.C. on 26.11.1977. Thereafter on 28.11.1977 accused Braham Pal was got arrested by Hari Raj Singh S. I. He was interrogated on 30.3.1978 and a supplementary charge-sheet Ext. Ka. 18 was submitted against him by Sri Chauhan. The charges framed against the accused persons have already been stated in the earlier para, which need not be repeated. 8. DURING the trial the accused persons have pleaded not guilty. Accused Braham Pal stated that he had gone to Allahabad on 6.6.1977 leaving his wife Smt. Bala at her father's house in village Dhikna and asked accused Harendra in village Sherpura Luhara to take his wife Smt. Bala to village Gandevla. 8. DURING the trial the accused persons have pleaded not guilty. Accused Braham Pal stated that he had gone to Allahabad on 6.6.1977 leaving his wife Smt. Bala at her father's house in village Dhikna and asked accused Harendra in village Sherpura Luhara to take his wife Smt. Bala to village Gandevla. Accordingly, accused Harendra reached village Gandevla along with Smt. Bala on 9.6.1977 at 10 a.m. The police had arrested him at 12 Noon there. Accused Harendra denied living with the deceased in village Gandevla. He denied illicit relations with Smt. Bala and also denied that his relations with the deceased were strained. Braham Pal accused stated that it was Veer Sen, who got his sister Smt. Anarkali murdered through his servant Nakkal and his companion and got the accused persons falsely implicated. Accused Braham Pal stated to have returned from Allahabad on 10.6.1977. He had sent a report to the police station but the station officer told that the report of the case had already been written. He also stated that Veer Sen had filed a writ petition in the High Court against Smt. Anarkali and had moved an application for early hearing of the case and he had gone to Allahabad to file counter-affidavit in reply and he had got the draft of the counter-affidavit of Smt. Anarkali to the village with him on 10.6.1977. 9. THE accused examined Har Pal Singh D.W. 1 Record Keeper of Eastern Jamuna Canal., Muzaffarnagar. He had proved that there was no water in the Munda Distributory from 6.6.1977 to 9.6.1977. Raj Karan, clerk of Sri N. C. Rajvanshi Advocate, High Court was also examined by the accused, who stated that accused Braham Pal had come to the High Court on 7.6.1977 and left Allahabad on 9.6.1977. He proved the letter sent by the Advocate Ext. Kha. 7. He also stated that the draft of the affidavit of Smt. Anarkali was also given to Braham Pal. 10. IN the Sessions trial, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W. 1 Veer Sen, P.W. 3 Sher Din, who had become approver in the case besides P.W. 4 Surendra, P.W. 5, Bhopal, P.W. 6 Ram Chandra, P.W. 7 Puran, P.W. 8 Sham Raj Singh, P.W. 9 Gyan Singh, P.W. 2 B. B. S. Chaudhari, P.W. 10 R. P. Dubey, P.W. 11 Virendra Singh, P.W. 12 Dr. A. K. Gupta and P.W. 13 Vishwanath Chauhan. A. K. Gupta and P.W. 13 Vishwanath Chauhan. The learned Sessions Judge by his detailed judgment, after consideration of the prosecution and defence evidence, was of the view that the prosecution case was not proved against the accused and he acquitted the accused persons in the case. 11. THE learned Sessions Judge after examining and scanning the evidence regarding correctness of the motive part arrived at a conclusion that there was great bad blood and enmity between Veer Sen, informant-complainant and the deceased. It has been observed that Veer Sen has admitted that since 1977, he never visited the house of the deceased. The most important observation of the learned Sessions Judge is that the deceased had already executed sale deed and gift-deed in favour of Braham Pal and her nephew and, therefore, there was no question of executing any transfer deed in favour of Veer Sen or his father Dharam Pal. The gift-deed dated 1.12.1971, marked as Ext. Kha 1, was executed in favour of Braham Pal accused by the deceased. In the said gift-deed, the deceased had clearly mentioned that Braham Pal is looking after her and she had great love and affection for him. In the gift-deed, it was mentioned that after the death of victim's husband Yashpal, the joint Khatedar Dharam Pal had been teasing her in every manner and he tried that she may die at the earliest so that Dharam Pal may get the land at the earliest. The suit for partition filed by the deceased was contested and obstructed by Dharam Pal. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that the motive, if any, to murder the deceased could be for informant-complainant, Veer Sen. Thus the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there was absolutely no motive on the part of the accused persons to murder the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to observe that it appears to be a calculated act of Veer Sen and his father to kill two birds by one stone. The deceased was got murdered as the accused suggested.' It has been found by the learned Sessions Judge that Veer Sen has to admit in the statement that after the murder of the deceased, he had moved an application for mutation of his name in place of the deceased alleged to be the only heir of her. The deceased was got murdered as the accused suggested.' It has been found by the learned Sessions Judge that Veer Sen has to admit in the statement that after the murder of the deceased, he had moved an application for mutation of his name in place of the deceased alleged to be the only heir of her. Copy of the said application is also proved and marked as Ext. Kha 11. The ultimate finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the accused persons to commit the crime. 12. THE learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, was of the view that the prosecution has not shown that Veer Sen saw the accused coming out of the house of the deceased at the odd hours of the night. Evidence of P.W. 4 Surendra was held to be not worth reliance. The learned Sessions Judge, as a fact, recorded a finding that from all the facts, it appears that Surendra is a partisan witness and is not of worth reliance in the absence of any corroboration from any corner. The learned Sessions Judge also recorded a finding that Sher Din also does not appear to be correct and he did not state about the shrieks in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The theory of hearing of the shrieks at such odd hours of night by the prosecution witness, namely, Surendra, was also not believed to be correct and reliable. The learned Sessions Judge also recorded a finding that it does not appear that the incident took place as alleged and Veer Sen made enquiry at village Sherpura Luhara regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge considered in great detail the evidence of P.W. 3 Sher Din approver, examined in the case. It is important to note that Sher Din was arrested on 14.10.1977 and no steps had been taken by the prosecution agency for his arrest earlier. The confessional statement of Sher Din P.W. 3 and the recovery of the dead body at the printing of the accused persons, O.Ps. in this appeal, were also considered in great detail. The learned A. G. A., Sri K. C. Saxena argued the appeal at great length and placed the entire evidence on record. The confessional statement of Sher Din P.W. 3 and the recovery of the dead body at the printing of the accused persons, O.Ps. in this appeal, were also considered in great detail. The learned A. G. A., Sri K. C. Saxena argued the appeal at great length and placed the entire evidence on record. Sri Saxena submitted that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons illegally and there was no just and convincing reason given by him in the judgment for not believing the evidence of P.W. 4 Surendra and Veer Sen. He submitted that the findings and appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge are wholly perverse and not in accordance with law, Sri Saxena submitted that the court below committed manifest error of law in not placing reliance on the statement of P.W. 3, Sher Din, who is an approver in the case. 13. The Court has to keep in its mind the scope of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal. The principles for interference in appeals against acquittal have been laid in a large number of cases by the Apex Court, notably in State of Punjab v. Pritam Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2005 . The principles laid therein have to be kept in mind while re appreciating the evidence in appeal against judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court has been pleased to lay that unless there are special circumstances for grave errors pleading the serious miscarriage of justice, this Court would not interfere in Special Leave Petition in order to set aside an order of acquittal and that too in a murder case. So far as the motive part as alleged by the prosecution against the accused persons is concerned, it has been shown to be flimsy and non-existent and the motive for the informant combatant to implicate the accused persons is apparently more probable. When gift-deed had already been made by the deceased, then there was no basis of apprehension that the deceased was likely to give the property to the father of the informant complainant. The Supreme Court was pleased to observe that 'when motives are thus equally alleged, the Court has to look the surrounding circumstances in order to find out the truth'. 14. The Supreme Court was pleased to observe that 'when motives are thus equally alleged, the Court has to look the surrounding circumstances in order to find out the truth'. 14. THE Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in AIR 1981 SC 733 (736) that 'when two views are possible, the High Court in appeal against acquittal is not to interfere with such Judgment of acquittal'. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1983 SC 308 and AIR 1981 SC 950 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ummed Bhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 424 has said that 'entertainment of appeal by the High Court against acquitted will be justified only under special circumstances'. In Awadesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC1158, the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under : "In G. 23. Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCR 94 : AIR 1979 SC 135 . this court quoted With approval the principles laid down by Privy Council in Sheo Smarup v. King Emperor, AIR 1927 PC 227 (2), wherein it was held that although the power of the High Court to re-assess the evidence and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of the conviction, yet, ass a rule of prudence, the High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to matters, e.g., (i) the view of the trial as to the credibility of the witnesses ; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (iv) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Court observed "where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Court observed "where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the court below based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal." While considering an appeal against acquittal, the High Court must keep in mind these principles in appreciating the evidence of witnesses. If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances, it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial court for acquitting the accused, and the other for convicting the accused, in such a situation the, rule of prudence should guide the High court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. Unless the conclusions of the trial court drawn or; the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. The High Court has in the instant case made an attempt to explain away the infirmities in the testimony of eye-witnesses in setting aside the order of acquittal. The High Court has, in our opinion, disregarded the rule of Judicial prudence in converting the order of acquittal to conviction." The learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri K. C. Saxena firstly submitted that the factum of recovery of the dead body of the victim Smt. Anarkali from the kitchen of her house at the pointing of the accused Smt. Bala and Harendra is proved by the prosecution evidence of P.W. 5 Bhopal. It was argued that the evidence of recovery of the dead body at the pointing of the accused persons Harendra and Smt. Bala was duly proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and there was no good reason for discarding the evidence of the prosecution on that count. Sri Saxena referred to the statement of P.W. 7 Puran, who stated that on the pointing of the accused persons, he had dug the place along with one Parmal with spade given by accused Harendra. Ext. Ka 6 is the recovery memo of the dead body of Smt. Anarkali. The perusal of Ext. Sri Saxena referred to the statement of P.W. 7 Puran, who stated that on the pointing of the accused persons, he had dug the place along with one Parmal with spade given by accused Harendra. Ext. Ka 6 is the recovery memo of the dead body of Smt. Anarkali. The perusal of Ext. Ka 6 shows that the memo of recovery was prepared on 9.6.1977 in the presence of witneses Mahi Pal, S. I. Hari Singh and Bhopal and the recovery of the dead body of Smt. Anarkali was made on the pointing of Harendra, son of Baljor and Smt. Bala, wife of Braham Pal. The dead body of Smt. Anarkali was recovered after digging the earth below the oven by Sri Parmal and Puran. The dead body was recovered from 2 1/2 from below the surface level. 15. IT has been argued that the pointing of the accused- O.P.Harendra and Smt. Bala while in custody of the police leading to the recovery of the dead body of Smt. Anarkali from the kitchen of the house where the said accused lived with the deceased was such a circumstance which establishes the participation of the accused persons in the commission of the offence coupled with the fact of the confessional statement made by them. IT is important to note that no memorandum of statement given by the accused Smt. Bala and Harendra was prepared as required by law. The learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence of P.W. 5 Bhopal, P.W. 6 Ram Chandra and P.W. 11 Virendra Singh alongwith the statement of P.W. 7 Puran, who is said to be the witness of digging the kitchen before excavating the dead body. Ram Chandra is said to have witnessed the inquest report at 2.30 p.m. and remained present there since about 12.30 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge appreciated the oral evidence of these witnesses and arrived at a conclusion that had any confession been recorded, there was no scope for the omission to show as to why the statement of Puran P.W. 7 was not recorded for about one hour. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that no such statement was made by the accused Harendra and Smt. Bala. Witness Bhopal was found to be a chance witness, who belongs to another locality. Veer Sen was also not believed as a truthful witness. 16. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that no such statement was made by the accused Harendra and Smt. Bala. Witness Bhopal was found to be a chance witness, who belongs to another locality. Veer Sen was also not believed as a truthful witness. 16. SRI G. N. Verma, counsel for the complainant-informant, who was assisting the learned A. G. A., submitted that the evidence of recovery of the dead body from the kitchen of the house where accused Harendra and Smt. Bala lived with the deceased was strong evidence, which was sufficient to prove the case of disappearance of evidence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. SRI G. N. Verma submitted that the place from where the dead body was dug out was in exclusive knowledge of Smt. Bala and Harendra. It was not a place accessible by others. This argument is also not worth acceptance in view of the finding that the witnesses P.W. 6 Ram Chandra, P.W. 5 Bhopal and P.W. 7 Puran were found by the learned Sessions Judge not reliable. The factum of statement of these witnesses and the alleged confession made by Smt. Bala and Harendra was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that there was no record of such statement as required under Section 28 of the Evidence Act besides the fact that there was no Justification for S.O. Virendra Singh P.W. 11 to have not recorded the statement of Puran who is said to be present since 12.30 p.m. These facts and circumstances, as appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, in no manner, can be termed as perverse or illegal. In view of the law regarding appreciation of evidence in appeals against acquittal referred to above, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are to be affirmed and call for no interference. The learned A.G.A. also submitted that there was strong circumstance and evidence of P.W. 4 Surendra, who is said to have heard the shrieks at about 2.30 a.m. when he had come out of his house to pass urine. The learned A.G.A. also submitted that there was strong circumstance and evidence of P.W. 4 Surendra, who is said to have heard the shrieks at about 2.30 a.m. when he had come out of his house to pass urine. It is pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 1 Veer Sen and his brother Hari Ratan, who is said to be coming back from the field after irrigating the same and had seen P.W. 3 Sher Din, Smt. Bala and Harendra accused persons at 3 a.m. outside the house of The learned Sessions Judge considered the defence evidence which shows that D.W. 1 Har Pal Singh, Record Keeper of the Eastern Jamuna Canal, Muzaffar nagar, has proved from the record of Munda Distributory that there was no water in the distributory between 6.6.1977 to 19.6.1977. Thus the statement of P.W. 1 Veer Sen, who is said to have witnessed at 3 a.m. Smt. Bala, Harendra and Sher Din outside the house of the deceased at such unusual hours. The statement of Veer Sen P.W. 1 thus became doubtful and not accepted as correct and believable by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of Raj Karan, Clerk of Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, Advocate High Court, Allahabad adduced in defence by accused Braham Pal was to the effect that accused Braham Pal accused was not in the village and he was at Allahabad at the time of incident was taken to be correct by the learned Sessions Judge. 17. THE learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to find out as to whether there was sufficient motive for the accused persons to have murdered the deceased Smt. Anarkali. It is not disputed that Smt. Anarkali was the sister of accused Braham Pal. In the gift- deed dated 1.12.1971 executed by the deceased Smt. Anarkali in favour of Braham Pal, which was proved in the case, it was especially stated that she had great love and affection for accused Braham Pal, who was living with her. It was also found that there was long standing litigation with complainant Veer Sen and his father with the deceased Smt. Anarkali. It was also found that there was long standing litigation with complainant Veer Sen and his father with the deceased Smt. Anarkali. It is admitted by Veer Sen P.W. 1 that Yashpal, husband of Smt. Anarkali deceased had died 14-15 years ago and 2 or 3 years after the death of her husband, she had filed a suit for partition against him, the suit was decreed. Separate Kuras were made and objection was filed by him regarding Kuras. It is also mentioned that the appeal of Veer Sen before the Commissioner failed. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Anarkali had executed the gift-deed and sale deed of her property in favour of Braham Pal deceased/accused. A revision was filed before the Board of Revenue by Veer Sen regarding Kuras. It has been found that the mutation on the basis of gift and sale deed was ordered in favour of Braham Pal and the objection of Veer Sen was rejected. Thus the learned Sessions Judge correctly recorded a finding that there was no question of Smt. Anarkali executing gift deed or transfer deed in favour of Veer Sen or his father Dharam Pal. The motive part, as suffested by the prosecution, was not proved at all. 18. THE learned counsel for the complainant Sri G. N. Verma and the learned A. G. A. Sri K. C. Saxena, placed the evidence of P.W. 3 Sher Din, who is said to have made a confession before the Magistrate and was granted pardon and thus was made an approver in the case. The law, as far the evidence of approver is concerned, is settled and there is not much controversy about it. The evidence of P.W. 3 Sher Din, who is said to have been arrested on 14.10.1977 by the police and that prior to it after the incident he had stayed for about five months in village Khatoli was not found by the Court below to be a believable statement. The learned Sessions Judge referred the evidence of P.W. 10 R. P. Dubey, S. I. who is said to have arrested Sher Din in village Gandevla. He could not explain as to why no steps under Sections 82-83, Cr. P.C. was taken by the prosecution. The name of Sher Din appears in the F.I.R Ext. Ka 1 itself. The learned Sessions Judge referred the evidence of P.W. 10 R. P. Dubey, S. I. who is said to have arrested Sher Din in village Gandevla. He could not explain as to why no steps under Sections 82-83, Cr. P.C. was taken by the prosecution. The name of Sher Din appears in the F.I.R Ext. Ka 1 itself. P.W. 11 Virendra Singh S.O. in his wisdom neither arrested him nor took steps for his arrest. The most important fact referred to by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment is that the confessional statement of Sher Din said to have been recorded was not forwarded to the Magistrate alongwith the challan report. In the absence of confessional statement, there was only a little evidence against him that he was seen in the night at 3 a.m. by Veer Sen coming out of the house of the deceased. He was enlarged on bail, thereafter his confessional statement was forwarded and even then the prosecution had not applied for cancellation of his bail on the ground that he had confessed the guilt for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution had colluded with Sher Din and was given full protection by the police and the complainant and was also fully assured before making any confessional statement that he would neither have to remain in jail nor be prosecuted. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge declined to place any reliance on the statement of Sher Din. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that Sher Din in his statement stated that he did not know the name of the counsel, who get him bailed out and also moved application on his behalf for becoming approver. The evidence of Sher Din was also appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, who found material contradictions in the statement of Sher Din recorded under Sections 161 and 164, Cr. P.C. The evidence of Sher Din was discarded by the Court below keeping in view the decision Sarwan Singh v. State, AIR 1957 SC 637 , wherein it has been said that the evidence of an approver has to satisfy double test. P.C. The evidence of Sher Din was discarded by the Court below keeping in view the decision Sarwan Singh v. State, AIR 1957 SC 637 , wherein it has been said that the evidence of an approver has to satisfy double test. It is not doubted that approver is a competent witness but his evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that he is a reliable witness is the test which is of a common witness. The second test required for appreciating the approver's evidence is that it must receive sufficient corroboration. The Court below appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the story of seeing the accused persons Harendra, Smt. Bala and Sher Din in the night at about 3 a.m. by P.W. 1 Veer Sen and his brother while returning after irrigating their field itself was found to be doubtful in view of the defence evidence that there was no water available in the distributory on the said date. The other aspect of hearing shrieks by P.W. 4 Surendra at 2.30 a.m. was also not found reliable and believable by the Court below for the reasons mentioned in earlier paras. The evidence of Veer Sen P.W. 1 that he had gone to the house of his father in village Sherpura Luhra was not believed. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant-informant Sri G. N. Verma and the learned A. G. A. Sri K. C. Saxena and perusal of the record we do not find that there is any just or cogent ground which may call for interference in this appeal. 19. THE appeal is dismissed so far as the accused Harendra and Smt. Bala are concerned. The appeal, so far as it relates to Braham Pal accused (now dead), stands abated. Appeal dismissed.