Deepak Kumar v. State Of Bihar — 1996 DIGILAW 27 (PAT)

Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Sole appellant in this case has been convicted under Sections 302/498-A/201 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order dated 22-12-1992 in S.T. No. 3 of 1992 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. But both the sentences under Sections 201 and 498-A of the I.P.C. have been ordered to run concurrently, but in respect of sentence under Section 302, I.P.C., it was ordered to be consecutive considering the brutality of the offence. 2. The accused-appellant at the time of occurrence was a Lecture in Chemistry in K.M.P.M. College Bistupur, Jamshedpur. Accused had married Pushpa, who is alleged to be dead several years ago and she happened to be the daughter of a rich person, Baleshwar Prasad Trivedi (PW 15) of Muzaffarpur. After the marriage, for some time, both the husband and wife were living at Muzaffarpur and then after getting the service of Lecturership, they shifted to Jamshedpur. It should be mentioned here that both the accused and his wife Pushpa were the students of post graduate class in Chemistry while marriage was solemnised between the two. Three childs were born out of the wedlock, two female and one male. At the time of the occurrence, the eldest daughter was studying at Mussorie living in residential Boarding house. The youngest made child was with them. Admittedly, at the time of occurrence, both the accused and his wife were living together in a quarter at quarter No. 1/L-A-IV type, old Baradwari near the Ramleela ground at Sakehi within Jamshedpur. It is the case of the prosecution that since after the marriage, the relationship between the wife and the hushand were not very cordial as the accused-husband was always de manding money and other considerations from the rich father-in-law eit her directly or through his wife Pushpa. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6-6-1991, the informant Baleshwar Prasad Trivedi received a telephonic message from the accused Deepak Kumar that his wife was missing since last Sunday. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6-6-1991, the informant Baleshwar Prasad Trivedi received a telephonic message from the accused Deepak Kumar that his wife was missing since last Sunday. Telephonic message was given by the accused-appellant from Jamshedpur and was received at Muzaffarpur but when the informant and his son wanted to have more details, the telephone connection was disconnected by the accused-appellant. On receipt of this information, as a poor father the informant became very much suspicious and sent immediately his son, Bipin Trivedi (PW 11) alongwith his brother-in-law, Bishwanath Choudhary (PW 12), Anil Kumar and Arbind Kumar to Jamshedpur to ascertain the whereabouts of his daughter Puspa. On 7-6-1991 Bipin Trivedi informed his father over telephone from Jamshedpur that neither Pushpa nor the accused Deepak Kumar were available at the quarter in which they were living at Jamshedpur rather the quarter was under lock and key. Definitely, this brought apprehension in the mind of the informant that his daughter might have been concealed by the accused, Deepak Kumar as their relationship was strained since long before. The informant then went to Muzaffarpur Police Station and lodged an F.I.R. stating that he smells foul play by the accused-appellant as Deepak Kumar was always squeezing money from the informant on one plea or the other and for non-payment, his-daughter Pushpa was being tortured by the appellant. 3. The Fardbeyan (Ext. 8) made by the informant was sent to Sakchi Police Station at Jamshedpur as the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Sakchi Police Station. First of all, a case was registered under Section 364/498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and started investigation. In course of the investigation, Deepak Kumar was arrested by the police at his quarter and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant, Deepak Kumar had made clear confession about killing of his wife within the quarter and then cut the deadbody into pieces and got it dumped in a trunk and a suit case and those were being taken to Patna and from Mahatma Gandhi Setu Bridge, the trunk and the suit case were thrown out in the river Ganges with the help of the driver of the Taxi, on the plea that the ntained articles of Puja. Subsequently, the case was registered under Section 498-A/302/201 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 27-8-1991. From the neighbouring people of the quarter No. 1/L-IV, PWs 11 and 12 came to known that in the quarter accused-Deepak Kumar, his brother, Ajay Sharma and his father were seen last on the previous Sunday so there was apprehension that the deceased Pushpa was concealed or made missing by those persons and as such alongwith Deepak Kumar, his father and brother were also made co-accused. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against Deepak Kumar under the said sections of law but the rest two accused were not sent up for trial. After taking cognizance by the C.J.M. Jamshedpur, the case was committed to the Sessions for trial. The charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Section 302/498-A/201 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 7-11-1992 and when the same were read over and explained to the appellant-accused, he pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution case is totally based on circumstantial evidence to the effect that the accused-appellant had killed his wife by throttling her and then cut the deadbody into pieces by buying knife and plastic bag from the market and then got the pieces inside the plastic bag and when the body was not fitted in the bags, he got it fitted with the help of hammer in the trunk and the rest of the body were taken into the suit case. The accused cut the deadbody into pieces by sharp cutting weapon by placing the same over cothes so that no blood stains could be seen or spotted in the floor of the bed-room. Then he hired an Ambassador car from the taxi stand of which PW 2, Bhola Singh was the driver and with the help of students who used to take tutions from the accused-appellant, namely, PW 1, Subir Kumar Singh PW 5 Shyama Prasad Saraswati, PW 6, Prakash Mahto, PW 7, J. V. Santosh, PW 8, Rabi Bhushan got the hevy trunk carried from inside the house to the Dicky of the car and by placing another suit case and brief case in the taxi, he started for Patna on some plea. It must be stated here that the accused-appellant has his original home at Dayalpur where his parents and brothers were living. 6. It must be stated here that the accused-appellant has his original home at Dayalpur where his parents and brothers were living. 6. Before committing the offence, it is the case of the prosecution that the male child belonging to the accused and deceased was kept in the house of PW 4, Phule hwar Thakur and at the time of going to Patna, he took the child in the Taxi with the plea that his wife was being hospitalised at Ranchi and he was going to see her. As stated earlier, the pieces of the deadbody contained in the Trunk and the suit cases were thrown to the river Ganges from the Mahatma Gandhi bridge with the help of the Taxi Driver, PW 2 by the accussed appellant on the plea that those contained Puja materials. Then he went to his home at Dayalpur and returned on the next day via-Patna to Jamshedpur and it appears that the accused-appellant to substantiate his case of missing of his wife, got a railway ticket booked in the name of his wife for the dated 5-6-1991 and afterwards, it was found that she did not travel. Reservation slip etc. were in the hands of the accused-appellant. After returning to Jamshedpur, the accused appellant sold some jewellery belonging to his wife Pushpa to PW 3 Khusmat Udani and from that money, he gave the fare of the Taxi to PW 2 Bhola Singh. On the information furnised by the accused-appellant, police was able to recover a hammer in the presence of the accused-appellant from his quarter receipt for selling of ornaments and a receipt showing payment of toll tax for the Ambassador Car P.W.Z.8981, Railway Reservation Slip, chart and a prescription in support of abortion of one Manisha Kumari at Patna on 11-4-1991 wherein Manisha Kumari was identified and shown as the wife of the accused. 7. Defence case as is appearing from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and deposition of defence witnesses (five in numbers) that there was no dispute between the husband and the wife rather they were maintaining cordial relationship and leading a hap conjugal life and that Pushpa became missing at her own sweet-will and the whole story of killing of Pushpa by the accused- appellant is totally false. But the fact regarding throw ing of box and a suit case in the river Ganges and selling or jewellery to PW 3 are admitted. But the plea of the defence is that the Box contained Puja materials and as per the Hindu belief, those were being thrown at the river Ganges and that for want of money, the accused-appellant had sold the Jewellery belonging to his mother, DW 4. The fact of reservation in the train in the name of Pushpa Kumari by the accused-appellant is denied and it is said that those have been done concoctedly by the informant in collusion with the police to feed fat his grudge against accused-appellant. The story of having illicit relation of the accusd-appellant with Manisha Kumari has been totally denied and the prescription as alleged by the prosecution is only a manufactured one. 8. For and on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses have been examined. They are PW 1 Subir Kumar Singh, is the student, of PW2, Bhola Singh, driver of Ambassador bearing No. WBZ-8981, PW 3, Khusman Udani, a goldsmith having shop of gold ornaments PW 4, Phuleshwar Thakur, with whom the accused-appellant had kept his son, PW 5, Shyam Prasad Saraswati, student of the accused-appellant, PW 6, Prakash Mahto is another studdent, PW 7, J. B. Santosh, another student (tendered), PW 8, Rabi Bhushan, another student (tendered), PW 9, Tarun Prasad Sinha, a student, PW 10, Shambhu Nath Roy is a formal witness, who proved the F.I.R, PW 11, Bipin Trivedi is the brother of the deceased, Pushpa and a brother-in-law of the accused-appellant, PW 12 Bishwanath Choudhary, maternal uncle of deceased, Pushpa, PW 13, Chandrabhushan Dubey, seizure witness, PW 14, Baleshwar Mahto, seizure witness, PW 15, Baleshwar Prasad, informant and a star witness in the case. PW 16, R.S.S. Mani, is the Principal of K.M.P.M. College, Jamshedpur, PW 17, is a Railway Reservation clerk, PW 18, R.K. Dey, Railway conductor, PW 19, Ram Sakal Singh, seizure list witness, PW 20, Anil Kumar Singh, Ivestigating Officer, PW 21, Dr. Shanti Roy, a doctor of the Nursing home, where Manisha Kumar was abortioned and proceed the prescription, PW 22 Srikant Prasad is a photographer and book photographs of the said papers for the purpose of comparison before the handwriting expert. Shanti Roy, a doctor of the Nursing home, where Manisha Kumar was abortioned and proceed the prescription, PW 22 Srikant Prasad is a photographer and book photographs of the said papers for the purpose of comparison before the handwriting expert. PW 23, Krishna Kumar Prasad is a handwriting expert, who proved the handwriting of the accused-appellant in the Reservation slip and other letters writen by the accused-appellant to his father-in-law. 9. Defence has also adduced evidence of five witnesses, who are DW 1, S. K. Sinha, DW 2 Laxaman Kumar Sharma are the formal witnesses, DW 3, Laxaman Rajak, a washerman, DW 4, Primila Devi is the mother of the accused-appellant and DW 5, Kusheswar Prasad Sharma is the father of the accused-appellant. 10. The whole case is based on circumstantial evidences alone. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence of alleged murder of Pushpa Devi nor her deadbody could be traced out but the learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the circumstances proved in the case held that the accused-appellant is liable to be convicted under the charger framed against him. The prosecution tried to prove the following circumstances against the accused-appellant for sustaining conviction under the charges framed against the accused-appellant : (i) Telephonic message of missing of Pushpa Devi ; (ii) Engaging of Ambassador Car by the accused-appellant for carrying the parts of the deadbody of Pushpa Devi; (iii) Throwing of trunk to the river Ganges from the Dicky of the Ambassador Car ; (iv) Selling of jewelleries of deceased Pushpa Devi just after her missing ; (v) Reservation slip in the train of Tata-Muzaffarpur express on 5-6-1991 ; (vi) Last residing of the deceased with the accused ; (vii) Demand of money/squeezing by accused from the informant-father-in-law ; (viii) False plea taken by the accused-appellant time to time about the missing of Pushpa Devi ; 11. Before coming into the evidences available for the consideration as mentioned above from the side of the prosecution. It must first of all be considered about the point of non-finding of corpus delicti in the present case. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of murder of Pushpa Devi and when her deadbody was not found to substantiate that she was being assaulted to death then whether such non-availability of or non-corpus delicti can prove the prosecution case fatal or not is to be seen. 12. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of murder of Pushpa Devi and when her deadbody was not found to substantiate that she was being assaulted to death then whether such non-availability of or non-corpus delicti can prove the prosecution case fatal or not is to be seen. 12. It is true that one of the essential ingredients of the offence of murder is required to be proved by the prosecution is that the accused caused the death of the person alleged to have been killed. This is very much required for the purpose to prove the injuries on the person of the deceased for getting corroboration of the other evidence of allegation of assault against the deceased. Discovery of the deadbody of the victim bearing injuries is only a rule of caution and has never been considered as the only more of proving of corpus delicti for the murder as there are so many cases where the discovery of deadbody became impossible. In such circumstances where the deadbody of the victim in a murder case is not found even after making, search with all human probability then other cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death of the victim is required to be adduced from the side of the prosecution. Thus, it is clear that the non discovery of corpus delicti does not take away the prosecution case but non finding of the same cast more burden on the prosecution to prove by cogent and satisfactory evidence for the proof of homicidal death. Corpus delicti are in maximum cases not discoverable when only circumstantial evidences are there for the homicidal death. The Apex Court as reported in AIR 1981 SC 738 held that : "the principle of caution cannot be pushed too far as required absolute proof. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned." 13. In the present case, the curpus delicti of Pushpa Devi could not be found. It could be ascertained from the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the startling nothings in the case diary that very many attempts were made from the side of the Investigating Officer to find out the corpus delicti but all attempts proved futile. In the present case, the curpus delicti of Pushpa Devi could not be found. It could be ascertained from the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the startling nothings in the case diary that very many attempts were made from the side of the Investigating Officer to find out the corpus delicti but all attempts proved futile. It should be mentioned here that according to the prosecution, the parts of the dead body being packed in a trank were thrown to the river Ganges and the time of occurrence being the month of June, definitely the river Ganges was in full brim and the deadbody must have been rushed away through currents a long distance before the murder could be detected. Even then attempts were made on the every possible bent and corner of the river Ganges to discover the deadbody but all attempts proved futile. So, it was found that although all humanly possible measure were from the side of the Investigating Agency, the deadbody could not be detected or discovered. 14. In the defence version that Pushpa Devi was missing from the house of her own sweet-will could not be plausibly shown by any preponderance of probabilities rather this missing story was concocted from the side of the defence was abundantly proved from the side of the prosecution which clearly does to show that the accused appellant mode all endeavour to get the deadbody disappeared to substantiate his version of missing of his wife, Pushpa Kumari. 15. In consideration of other circumstances as proved in the case, we do not find that non finding of corpus delicti is fatal to the prosecution case in this particular case with peculiar circumstances and events, rather disappearance of deadbody is the manovre of the accused appellant himself. 16. Let us now start with the circumstances as mentioned above as to verify how far the prosecution could be able to prove those circumstances. The first circumstance is the telephonic message of missing of Pushpa Devi from the side of the accused appellant to the informant. The telephonic message was received by the informant of Muzaffarpur on 6-6-1991 in the early morning hours and the voice as of accused appellant, Deepak Kumar, who allegedly informed that his wife Pushpa Devi was missing since last Sunddy. The telephonic message was received by the informant of Muzaffarpur on 6-6-1991 in the early morning hours and the voice as of accused appellant, Deepak Kumar, who allegedly informed that his wife Pushpa Devi was missing since last Sunddy. When the informant and his son wanted to get details from the accused appellant, the telephone connection was disrupted by the accused appellant without giving any further details. About this telephonic message on 6-6-1991, there is no denial from the side of the defence rather it was admitted that such telephonic message was given by the accused appellant to the informant in the course of cross-examination of the vital witnesses to the occurrence. PW 11 Bipin Trivedi, brother of the deceased and PW 15, B. P. Trivedi father of the deceased and informant in this case have proved the telephonic message by their evidence before the trial court. This telephonic message also finds place in the FIR of the case which was lodged by PW 15 with the Muzaffarpur Police Station which was ultimately transferred to Sakchi Police Station for the purpose of investigation. Thus this piece of circumstantial evidence has been proved from the side of the prosecution. 17. I am now to take the second circumstance about the last residing of the deceased Pushpa Devi with the accused-appellant, Deepak Kumar. It is not denied from the side of the defence that Pushpa Kumari was residing till her date of missing on 3-6-1991 with the accused-appellant, Deepak Kumar within the quarter at Jamshedpur. This fact has also come to the effect that the accused appellant made a telephonic massage to the father of the deceased Pushpa Kumari at Muzaffarpur to the effect that she was missing from last Sunday i.e. from the morning of 3-6-1991. This telephonic message has not been denied as has been discussed earlier. Besides that the accused-appellant on 6-6-1991 lodged a Senna at Sakchi Police Station which has been marked as Ext. 9 in this case wherein he had written that his wife was missing since morning of 3-6-1991 and that she had also take with herself her some of the ornaments. This Senha report (Ext. 9) has not been denied by the appellant rather admitted by him in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. under question No. 12. 18. 9 in this case wherein he had written that his wife was missing since morning of 3-6-1991 and that she had also take with herself her some of the ornaments. This Senha report (Ext. 9) has not been denied by the appellant rather admitted by him in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. under question No. 12. 18. Thus, this circumstances of residing of deceased Pushpa Kumari with the accused appellant, Deepak Kumar till the date of 3-6-1991 has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. On this point, Mr. N. N. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the aaccused-appellant has not argued anything adverse. 20. The next circumstance is selling of jewellery of deceased Pushpa Devi just after missing. On 6-6-1991, Deepak Kumar had sold the ornaments to PW 3 Khusman Udani. This has been proved by the PW 3, Khusman Udani himself being corroborated by the Taxi driver, PW 2, who stated that he was paid of his taxi fare from the consideration money after coming out from the Jewellers shop of PW 3. But here the accused appellant made a distorting fact to PW-3 to the effect that he was selling those ornaments for purchasing land. There is some denial regarding the ownership of those ornaments. According to the defence, the ornaments belonged to the mother of the accused appellant and to that effect the mother has deposed as DW in this case to the effect that she had given her ornament to her son for selling to jeweller. In the search of the house, the Investigating Officer did not find the ornament belonging to Pushpa Devi in the house, rather the accused appellant while giving Sanha to Sakchi Police Station mentioned that the ornaments of Pushpa Devi had been taken by her at the time of going away from the matrimonial home. This fact was definitely stated by the accused-appellant to show disappearance of the ornaments of the deceased from the house and these ornaments belonging to his mother, as deposed by the mother and stated by the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is only an after thought to deviate from the fact that he had sold the ornaments of his wife. P. C. is only an after thought to deviate from the fact that he had sold the ornaments of his wife. The accused appellant is an educated intelligent man and he knew that the ladies generally do not leave their ornaments while leaving the house and taking advantage of that sentiments and emptions of the ladies, he had sold away jewellery of his wife to show that his wife had left the home with her ornaments. Selling of jewellery to the PW 3 has been proved from the side of the prosecution and also from the admittance of the accused appellant and his witnesses. The only deviation with regard to the ownership of the jewelleries, which was definitely put up afterwards as an after thought to be belonging to the mother of the accused appellant, when it could be found that there is no way out of concealing the fact of the selling of jewellery of his wife to PW 3. This circumstances could also be proved from the side of the prosecution. 21. Then the circumstances came about engaging of Ambassdor Car by the accused-appellant for carrying the trunk alleged to contain the pieces of deadbody of Pushpa Kumari. Before discussing this circumstance it should be mentioned here that no evidence is available regarding the killing of Pushpa Devi by accused-appellant and then cutting the same in parts for containing in the trunk. The Investigating Officer stated in evidence that the accused-appellant made confession before the police regarding this fact and of the facts of purchasing plastic bag. Chhura from the Bazar but those are indmissible in evidence and nothing could be brought on record regarding any circumstances to that effect except some red marks on the floor of the quarter which were broken and seized and then sent to F. S. I. for chemical examination to prove that those were the marks of human blood. It is also the case of the prosecution that for containing the parts of the deaybody within the trunk, a hammer was used and accordingly a hammer was seized from the quarter itself but that hammer did not contain any marks of blood. 22. Now coming to the circumstance as mentioned above, the Ambassador car belonging to PW 2 was engaged by the accused-appellant and brought the same to his quarter. The car was numbered as WBZ/8981. 22. Now coming to the circumstance as mentioned above, the Ambassador car belonging to PW 2 was engaged by the accused-appellant and brought the same to his quarter. The car was numbered as WBZ/8981. The accused-appellant hired the taxi from PW 2 on the plea of going to Dayalpur from his quarter at Jamshedpur. After the car was reached, according to the prosecution, it was taken to the back side of the quarter where a Box and attachee were loaded with the help of the students who were taking tution from the accused-appellant. The box was a heavy one and on being asked by the taxi driver, the accused-appellant replied that the same contained Puja Samagri. Again when the students asked, the accused-appellant replied that the same contained books. Trial then there was no much doubt in the mind of anybody. The replies given by the accused-appellant differently to different persons show his guilt consciousness. If the box contained Puja Samagri then there was no reason why the accused-appellants would say to the students that the box contained books only. There is a discreancy regarding the evidence of parking of the car either on the rear side or on the back side. Mr. N. N. Sinha streneously argued, according to the evidence of Investigating Officer, the passage from rear side to the back side is only 5 feet and as such there is no possibility of an Ambassador car to go from rear side to the back side. According to the students, it was parked on the rear side and according to the driver, it was taken to the back side for loading the box in the Dicky of the car. Such discrepancy in the evidence has got no much bearing as it evident from the statements of dfferent witnesses and the Investigating Officer that the quarter was not a big one and it matters little whether the Car was parked on the rear side or on the back side. But, the fact remains that the Taxi was hired by the accused-appellant on the plea of going to Patna and the same was brought to his quarter wherein a heavy box was loaded on the dicky of the Car and the accused-appellant himself boarded on the same and started for his destination. 23. It is further contended by Mr. But, the fact remains that the Taxi was hired by the accused-appellant on the plea of going to Patna and the same was brought to his quarter wherein a heavy box was loaded on the dicky of the Car and the accused-appellant himself boarded on the same and started for his destination. 23. It is further contended by Mr. N. N. Sinha that if really the box contained the pieces of deadbody of Pushpa Kumari then bad smell must have come out at the time when the same was thrown on the bridge of river Ganges and the driver of the Taxi must have scented some foul play. His further submissions is that as it was the month of June then because of heat, there must have been some bad smell coming out from the box itself. But, there is no such evidence of bad smell either from the side of the prosecution or from the cross-examination of the witnesses from the side of the defence. The way the box was taken to the Dicky shows that there was some foul play from the side of the accused-appellant when that is different pieas taken by an accused-appellant regarding the contents of the box. Moreover, the fact that one and half year male body of the accused appellant was kept outside the quarter during the preparation of the accused-appellant of loading the contents in the box, goes further to show that the accused-appellant must have killed his wife and then cut it into pieces and then contained those pieces within the box itself, otherwise there was no reason why the baby should have been kept outside the quarter. The baby was kept in the house of PW 4 and while going to Patna, the baby was again taken by the accused-appellant in the Taxi. To PW 4, the accused-appellant made again a false plea saying that he was taking the baby to T M H. Hospital where his wife is going to be operated and the baby was kept there with the plea that his wife was being hospitalised. But if the wife was really missing from the morning of 3-6-1991 then there was no reason why he should have given a false statement to PW 4 who happens to be the father of one of his pupil. 24. Mr. But if the wife was really missing from the morning of 3-6-1991 then there was no reason why he should have given a false statement to PW 4 who happens to be the father of one of his pupil. 24. Mr. Sinha has criticised the evidence of this PW 4 on the plea that when the baby was kept in his house, he stated before the trial court that he was present but before the police, it was his wife in whose custody the baby was kept by the accused-appellant. During the trial, this PW 4 has stated that his wife was not in the house as she had gone to appear in B. Ed. examination in Calcutta and as such the baby was kept with him. 25. Whether the baby was kept first of all with the wife of PW 4 then it was taken from PW 4 does not create much difference as the facts remain that the male baby of accused-appellant was kept in the house of PW 4 and while going to Patna in Taxi, the baby was again taken to the Car from the custody of PW 4 and the false pleas taken by the accused- appellant before the PW 4 confers that the accused-appellant must have killed his wife and only to screen himself, he had given a false plea of hospitalisation of his wife and then the operation at T. M. H. Hospital. It has been argued by Mr. Sinha, appearing for and on behalf of the accused-appellant that as the wife was missing the accused-appellant made such false pleas only to keep the family prestige. I am unable to accept such explanation. 26. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, appearing for and on behalf of the Informant has argued streneously that the way the accused-appellant took different pleas before the different persons conclusively finger towards the guilt of the accused-appellant as he being the husband from whose custody the wife became missing, was solely responsible to show what happened to his wife, but as he himself was a guilty one he gave false pleas. 27. From the side of the prosecution, it was streneously attempted to prove that the accused-appellant was always trying to squeeze money from the rich father-in-law since after the marriage and there was also a deposit of Rs. 27. From the side of the prosecution, it was streneously attempted to prove that the accused-appellant was always trying to squeeze money from the rich father-in-law since after the marriage and there was also a deposit of Rs. 40,000 in the name of the deceased Pushpa Kumari in the bank by the father to satisfy the greed of the accused-appellant. Some letters have also been proved to show how the accused-appellant was trying to squeeze money from the father-in-law and to that effect, there is evidence of the father-in-law, brother-in-law and the maternal uncle-in-law of the accused-appellant. Some letters written by Pushpa Kumari also suggested how she was being pressed by the accused-appellant for getting money from her father. During the time of settlement of marriage of the brother-in-law of the accused-appellant, he demanded a Car from the father-in-law to attend the marriage ceremony. The letter (Ext. 5/5) shows such demands from the side of the accused-appellant, although the letter has been artistically written by the educated appellant but his inner greed could be very well inferred from the totality of the letter written by the accused-appellant. The relationship between the wife and the husband was strained within 2-3 years of the marriage could be evident from the fact that there was even proposal for divorce between the two. These facts are not denied. But, afterwards their strained relationship was perhaps subsided for the time being when the children were born in the wedlock and parhaps the accused-appellant when got a service at Jamshedpur was having sufficient means to maintain family but still he was asking for money, could be evident from the evidence of the three witnesses as mentioned above. 28. Mr. N. N. Sinha appearing for the accused-appellant argued that those letters and the evidence do not show the demands of dowry after long years of marriage between the two and those cannot be the immediate cause for the murder of the wife Pushpa Kumari by the accused-appellant. But, from the totality of the evidence and going through and scrutinising the letters written by Pushpa Kumari and the accused-appellant, it could be found that the relationsnip between the husband and the wife was not very cordial and the accused-appellant was in the habit of squeezing money from the father of Pushpa Kumari. But, from the totality of the evidence and going through and scrutinising the letters written by Pushpa Kumari and the accused-appellant, it could be found that the relationsnip between the husband and the wife was not very cordial and the accused-appellant was in the habit of squeezing money from the father of Pushpa Kumari. PW 11, Bipin Trivedi in Para-11 of his evidence stated that he had not much knowledge about the demand of money by the accused-appellant from his father. But, this sentence alone does not go to take away the other statements available in his evidence and the evidence of other two witnesses regarding the tendency of squeezing of money by the accused-appellant from his rich father-in-law. These demands may not infer demand of dowry but the fact remains that for such demand of money, the accused-appellant must have strained relationship with his wife. This circumstance of squeezing money by the accused-appellant has been proved to some extent to support the prosecution case towards the strained relationship between the husband and the wife. 29. Such arguments have been placed from the side of the accused-appellant regarding the reservation slip in the train by the accused-appellant in the name of Pushpa Kumari for travelling in Tata-Muzaffarpur Express on 6-6-1991. It appears that the accused-appellant got the seat reserved in the train after coming down from Patna and Dayalpur after throwing the trunk in the river Ganges and perhaps for the reason to show that she had left for Muzaffarpur the accused-appellant had done so. But, peculiarly enough this fact does not find place in the Sanha report made by the accused-appellant regarding missing of his wife at Sakchi Police Station. A suggestion has been given from the side of the accused to the effect that Pushpa had really travelled in the train in the Reservation seat. But it has been argued by referring to AIR 1969 Gujrat, Page-69 and 1994 Eastern Criminal Cases, page-364, to the effect that suggestions made by the accused-appellant during the course of trial to the prosecution witnesses is inadmissible in evidence and does not carry weight to form an opinion against the accused-appellant. 30. But it has been argued by referring to AIR 1969 Gujrat, Page-69 and 1994 Eastern Criminal Cases, page-364, to the effect that suggestions made by the accused-appellant during the course of trial to the prosecution witnesses is inadmissible in evidence and does not carry weight to form an opinion against the accused-appellant. 30. It has been argued from the side of the appellant that the reservation slip and the handwriting over it has not been proved from the side of the prosecution and the handwriting expert, who has deposed in this case has no technical experience and his evidence is not worthy to be relied on for the purpose of proof of the handwriting of the accused-appellant. It has further been argued that the way the documents in question have been sent to the handwriting expert through the prosecution agency is totally against all norms.The handwriting expert or the hand writing of the accused-appellant was not proved during the investigation ot the case. Then during the course of trial a prayer was made from the prosecution side for formal proof of the handwriting of the accused-appellant over the reservation slip but that prayer was once rejected by order dated 25-7-1992 and in the "order it was specifically mentioned that evidence of handwriting expert is not of much importance in the case as the handwriting of the accused-appellant was very much known to the father-in-law and the Principal of the College and they would be best person to prove the handwriting of the accused-appellant and there is no need of sending the documents to any handwriting expert. But again such prayer was made and the Sessions Judge allowed the prayer by order dated 9-9-1992, although objections were raised from the side of the accused. Against that order of allowance, no revision petition has been preferred, but that fact can be challenged in the appeal also. It appears that allowance of such prayer once rejected means review of the previous order dated 25-7-1992 and in that sense the order of allowance of handwriting expert may not be very much legal. However, for that irregularity or illegality, the evidence of handwriting expert cannot be discarded forthwith. But, it appears that in the process of sending the documents to handwriting expert the Sessions Judge did not take the responsibility as a Court but prosecution agency was allowed to do so. However, for that irregularity or illegality, the evidence of handwriting expert cannot be discarded forthwith. But, it appears that in the process of sending the documents to handwriting expert the Sessions Judge did not take the responsibility as a Court but prosecution agency was allowed to do so. Even the records of the case was made open to a private photographer to take photographs of those documents for the purpose of comparison by the handwriting expert. The original documents were not sent to the handwriting expert, only the photographs were sent to but those photographs were taken on the permission of the Sessions Judge. About the techncial qualification of the handwriting expert, there is much cross-examination. Handwriting expert has proved that the reservation slip is in the hands of the accused-appellant by tallying with the admitted signature of the accused-appellant. The teport of the handwriting expert is not the conclusive proof of handwriting of the accused-appellant in the disputed documents but this only comes as an aid to the Courts decision. Court is the final authority regarding the proof of handwriting of the accused-appellant in the disputed documents. Moreover in the present case even if we discard the handwriting expert evidence a whole than also there is proof of the handwriting of the accused-appellant in the Reservation slip by the father-in-law of the accused-appellant and the Principal of the College who are definitely well aware of the handwriting of the accused-appellant. In the nacked eye even the reservation slip and the signature over it can be found to be in the hands of the accused-appellant. Moreover |the Reservation slip was found from the Cupboard of the accused-appellant kept in the college common room. So the custody is also from the accused-appellant about the reservation slip itself. The Railway employees have also proved that one P. Kumari was to travel under reservation ticket in the Tata-Muzaffarpur Express on the relevant date but the said seat was vacant during the journey. Reservation chart was also proved Such evidence together with the suggestions given by the accused-appellant to the prosecution witnesses go to prove conclusively that the accused-appellant made reservation of his wife in Tata-Muzaffarpur Express train on 6-6-1991 for creating in evidence of missing of P. Kumari from the house of the accused-appellant. Reservation chart was also proved Such evidence together with the suggestions given by the accused-appellant to the prosecution witnesses go to prove conclusively that the accused-appellant made reservation of his wife in Tata-Muzaffarpur Express train on 6-6-1991 for creating in evidence of missing of P. Kumari from the house of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant made all endeavour to hush up his offence by creating false evidence regarding travelling of Pushpa Kumari by Tata-Muzaffarpur express train only to show that she left the quarter of the accused-appellant at her own sweet-will. Thus it is found from the circumstances proved in the case from the side of the prosecution that the accused-appellant made hectio attempt to ccreate false evidence regarding missing of his wife, Pushpa Kumari to screen himself from the offence of murder of his wife. 31. This circumstances of creating false evidence by the accused-appellant to show that his wife Pushpa Kumari after missing from the quarter had travelled in Tata-Muzaffarpur Express on 6-6-1991 has been proved. The reservation ship (Ext. 10) was in the hands of the accused-appellant. The fact has been proved by the Principal, Mr. R. S. S. Mani and also by the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the accused-appellant being corroborated by the evidence of the handwriting expert. 32. Although, there was initially no allegation regarding illicit relationship of accused-appellant with one Manisha Kumari, but at the time of investigation this had come into light when a prescription (Ext. 1/6) was recovered from the cup board of the College common room of the accused-appellant and on the basis of that prescription, investigation was made and it was found that on 10-4-1991 pregnancy of Manisha Kumari was terminated in a Nursing home at Patna and that prescription was proved during the course of trial by PW-21, Dr. Shanti Roy. The prescription was recovered from the cup board in presence of PW-16, Mr. R.S.S. Mani, the Principal of K. M. P. M. College, Jamshedpur. In that prescription, it was mentioned that Manisha Kumari was the wife of Deepak Kumar meaning thereby that falsely Manisha Kumari was introduced as the wife of accused-appellant for the purpose of termination of her pregnancy Manisha Kumari has not been examined in the case, but it appears from the Case Diary that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Agency. It is also not denied that Manisha Kumari was once a student of the accused-appellant Deepak Kumar. From the letter dated 12-4-1991 (Ext. 5/H) written by the deceased, Pushpa Kumari to her mother, it reveals that Deepak Kumar, the accused-appellant was absent from Jamshedpur during the period of termination of pregnancy of Manisha Kumari on 10-4-1991. This fact of absence of Deepak Kumar from Jamshedpur also gets support from the Attendance Register proved in the case in the College were Deepak Kumar was serving. So the circumstances was that during the course of termination of pregnancy of Manisha Kumari, Deepak Kumar was absent and as per letter dated 12-4-1991 of the deceassed addressed to her monther, it reveals that the accused-appellant went to his home at Dayalpur during that period. So, there was definitely a possibility of Deepak Kumar remaining present at Patna on 10-4-1991. 33. Except such circumstances, nothing could be proved directly regarding illicit relationship of Manisha Kumari with the accused-appellant. If the accused-appellant had no relationship with Manisha Kumari then how the prescription could be found about the termination of pregnancy of Manisha Kumari from the cup board of the accused-appellant. Defence is totally silent on this point. 34. Mr. Sinha appearing for the accused-appellant has streneously argued that this fact of illicit relationship of the accused-appellant with Manisha Kumari was only an after thought and was manufactured and concocted by the father-in-law of the accused-appellant with the Investigating Agency. It is true that there was no such allegation in the first information report regarding this illicit relationship between the accused-appellant and Manisha Kumari, but it appears that this fact came into light during the course of investigation and also there was confession to that effect from the side of the accused-appellant before the Police but such confession is inadmissible in evidence and such fact even if revealed cannot covered the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as it has got no direct relevancy with the murder of Pushpa Kumari. 35. Be it what it may, the fact remains that the certificate and prescription of termination of pregnancy of one Manisha Kumari was recovered from the cup board of the accused-appellant and that Manisha Kumari was once a student of the accused-appellant. 36. 35. Be it what it may, the fact remains that the certificate and prescription of termination of pregnancy of one Manisha Kumari was recovered from the cup board of the accused-appellant and that Manisha Kumari was once a student of the accused-appellant. 36. Regarding the false plea taken by the accused-appellant and creating of documents of missing of Pushpa Kumari by the accused-appellant is relevant in the case and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act to show the conduct of the accused-appellant and his behaviour before and after the occurrence. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the conduct of the accused-appellant just before and after the occurrence is very much relevant where the accused-appellant was the person who is directly concerned to make an explanation as to the missing of his wife from his custody. Reference may be made in this regard to 1972 Cr LJ 1342 and 1986 PLJR 688. 37. The evidence of false explanation and creating of false document by the accused are not only relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act but those have got considerable importance when those were apparently designed to sereen the accused to his favour to get himself free from suspicion. Those evidences are further relevant when false pleas and false documents are created with the motivated purpose to divert the Investigating Agency and the chain of circumstances available against the accused and these false pleas rather connects the chain of circumstances available against the accused in the present case. 38. In the present case, soon after the occurrence the accused had given false explanation only to give design to the fact and evidence available to him. Unnatural and unusual are the circumstances and the pleas taken by the accused just previous and subsequent to the occurrence go to reveal reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused to get himself screened from his guilty and conscience and those circumstances and false pleas are sufficient to draw reasonable inference against the accused-appellant coupled with other facts established by the evidence. 39. 39. Normally the pleas taken by the accused are not relevant and those may not be considered for proving the guilt against the accused but in a case of circumstantial evidence, such false pleas and unusual and unnatural circumstances established from the circumstances of the case going to support the evidence against the accused cannot be termed as surmises and conjectures. 40. All the circumstances as discussed above are found to have been established in the present case together with the false pleas and creation of false documents by the accused-appellant. Now, the question arises as to whether those circumstances can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in case of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances proved in the case must finger towards guilt of the accused and the accused alone without having any other inference available in favour of the accused-appellant, we are to see whether the circumstances proved in the case can have any other alternative except the fact of guilt against the accused-appellant. 41. It has been submitted by Mr. N. N. Sinha that even if the circumstances are said to be proved in the case against the accused-appellant then also when corpus delicti is not available then those circumstances could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant had committed murder of Pushpa Kumari when there is no evidence to the fact that the accused-appellant had killed his wife and cut her body into pieces. 42. It is true that corpus delicti is not available and that there is no direct evidence against the accused-appellant about killing of his wife but the circumstances proved and the way the accused tried to divert his guilt go to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant must have killed his wife and then cut the dead body into pieces and then thrown into the river for screening himself from the guilt of murder. 43. 43. Thus, I am of the opinion that the learned court below was right in holding that the accused-appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him under Section 302/201 of the I. P. C. As the learned trial Judge has discussed the individual evidence of the witnesses both from the prosecution side and of the defence side, I have debarred myself from discussing the individual evidence in this appellate judgment as I do concur with the inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge on the evidence of individual witnesses in the case, but regarding the conviction under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. I am of the opinion that on the evidence available on record, this charge could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the conviction under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. is not sustainable in law. The sentences passed under Section 302/201, I. P. C. against the accused-appellant is just and proper and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same and hence the same is upheld, but the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. is hereby set aside. 44. The appeal is thus dismissed with the modification in the conviction and sentence as mentioned above.