B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6-12-1993 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, bangalore City in S. C. No. 175 of 1990 acquitting respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused 1 and 2') of offences under Sections 302 and 397,i. P. C. ( 2 ) P. W. 25-G. Moodlayya, the then Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch filed the charge-sheet in connection with Crime no. 664 of 1989 of Ulsoor Police Station before the V metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and finally, the learned X additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the sessions Judge') has disposed of the case. The learned Sessions judge has framed the charges under Sections 302 and 392, i. P. C. against A-l and under Section 201,i. P. C. against A-l and a-2. Since both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the case has been posted for the examination of the prosecution witnesses. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 25 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-16 and M. Os. 1 to 26. For defence no witness was examined much less any document was marked. ( 4 ) AFTER the closure of the evidence for the prosecution, both the accused have been examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of the above stated offences on the ground that the case of the prosecution is entirely depending upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that were sought to be proved by the prosecution were not clearly established. The learned Sessions Judge has drawn the following circumstances, namely, (1) that the deceased Rajeshwari had died a homicidal death; (2) that the accused 1 and 2 were the residents of house bearing No. 2 (old No. 23), IV Cross, Gupta Layout, Ulsoor, bangalore-560008; (3) that accused 1 had induced the deceased to go to her residence well-dressed with all jewelleries adorned in order to take her to Koramangala to see a girl to Harish Babu; (4) that the deceased was found in the company of A-l on 30-10-1989 by P. W. 2-Satish Kumar; P. W. 3-Veerendra Babu and P. W. 22-Kum. Rathna; (5) that the legs of a female dead body was seen by P. W. 20-Naveen Kumar under the cot of A-l and the bloodstains were also seen on the leg of A-l by P. W. 4-Shantha; (6) that the dead body of the deceased; the ornaments which were stated to be worn by the deceased, a steel bucket and steel Deepada Kamba and a steel plate said to have been used by A-l for the commission of the offence and the bloodstained clothes of the deceased and A-l were recovered in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by A-l; and (7) that the conduct of A-l was unnatural and was not that of an innocent person. While the learned Sessions Judge held that the deceased Rajeshwari met with a homicidal death and both the accused were residing in House bearing No. 2 (old No. 23), 4th cross, Gupta Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore, has given the negative finding on the rest of the points raised by him. Since he was not satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution on those points, he has recorded the acquittal. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal stating that P. Ws. 2,3,4, 9, 11,20 and 22 are the independent witnesses. Sri Satish, learned High Court government Pleader while reiterating on the above stated points also laid much stress on the points viz. , that the deceased had told her husband that there was programme of going to koramangala to see a girl for her third son and so saying, the deceased being well-dressed and wearing ornaments, left her house at 3. 30 p. m. to go to the house of A-l. At about 4. 00 p. m. or so, the deceased met P. W. 9, Rajesh and on enquiry she had told of her going to the house of the accused as she was to go to koramangala; P. W. 11-Chandrakanthamma at 4. 00 p. m. had seen the deceased going towards the house of A-l, of course, P. W. 11 has turned hostile. P. W. 22-Kum. Rathna had seen the deceased going towards the house of A-1 and A-1 took the deceased inside her house; P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 had seen the deceased talking with A-1. On 30-10-1989 at about 5. 00 p. m. or 5. P. W. 22-Kum. Rathna had seen the deceased going towards the house of A-1 and A-1 took the deceased inside her house; P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 had seen the deceased talking with A-1. On 30-10-1989 at about 5. 00 p. m. or 5. 30 p. m. A-1 came to the house of P. W. 4-Shantha and left her daughter on the pretext of taking some of her relatives to the bus stand. P. W. 4 and 20 had gone to the house of A-1 to leave the daughter of A-l and at that time, the door was closed and was not opened for five minutes. After it was opened, P. Ws. 4 and 20 noticed blood-stains on the legs of A-1 and P. W. 20 also had seen the human legs in the gunny bag inside the bedroom under the cot. A-1 had gone to P. W. 5-Dr. Kamala Chandrashekar and narrated that she had dog bite, but it was not so. P. W. 1 went to the house of A-1 at about 8. 30 p. m. and on an enquiry about his wife, A-l denied the arrival of the deceased to her house. P. W. 8 also states that he made an enquiry with A-l whether his mother had come to her house. At that time also, she had denied. P. Ws. 1 and 8 had gone in search of the deceased. There was earlier a missing complaint and on the next day there was a complaint by P. W. 1. Then the accused was brought to the ulsoor Police Station and interrogated. She made a voluntary statement and in pursuance of it, dead body was recovered and the ornaments were also recovered. As such, the case of the prosecution is able to establish the chain of the circumstances against A-1. At this stage only, it is to be stated that the learned high Court Government Pleader is unable to bring any material against A-2. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution shall be focussed only on A-1. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri Poovaiab, learned Counsel for there spondents strenuously submitted that already there is a judgment of acquittal. Hence this Court has got to be slow in reversing the judgment although this Court comes to opine and accept the other possible view. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution shall be focussed only on A-1. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri Poovaiab, learned Counsel for there spondents strenuously submitted that already there is a judgment of acquittal. Hence this Court has got to be slow in reversing the judgment although this Court comes to opine and accept the other possible view. In addition to this he also submitted that A-1 and A-2 were not at all residing in the house as stated by the prosecution. He also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as a whole is not inspiring the confidence. As such the judgment of the acquittal be not reversed. ( 7 ) IN view of these rival submissions, now it has to be seenw he ther the learned Sessions Judge is justified in recording the acquittal against the accused persons. ( 8 ) THE story of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: the deceased-Rajeshwari is the wife of P. W. 1-N. Ganesh who is the complainant. P. W. 8-B Harish and P. W. 10-G. Suresh are the sons of P. W. 1 and the deceased. Radha is the wife of P. W. 10-G. Suresh, P. W. 13-Yashoda is the owner of the house bearing no. 2 (old No. 23) 4th Cross, Gupta Layout, Bangalore. A-1 is the wife of A-2. They were residing in the house bearing no. 2 in the ground floor on rental basis. P. W. 13 was in occupation of the first floor of the said house. Accused 1 came to know the family of P. W. 1 about a year prior to the date of incident. A-1 got herself acquainted with the deceased at Karumariamman Temple, M. V. Garden, Ulsoor, bangalore and subsequently, became very friendly with the deceased, as the grandson of P. W. 1 and the daughter of the accused were studying at St. Meera's School in Ulsoor. A-l and the deceased used to meet daily at lunch time. Their daily meeting developed into friendship. A-1 proposed her younger sister to P. W. 8. The proposals were rejected by P. W. 1 on the ground that P. W. 8 was not only young but also had entered into services very recently. Meera's School in Ulsoor. A-l and the deceased used to meet daily at lunch time. Their daily meeting developed into friendship. A-1 proposed her younger sister to P. W. 8. The proposals were rejected by P. W. 1 on the ground that P. W. 8 was not only young but also had entered into services very recently. One or two months prior to the incident, a-l proposed a girl from Koramangala to P. W. 8-Harish, on the ground that the girl was the only daughter to her parents and they were well-off. This proposal was rejected by P. W. 1. After 15 days or a month later, the girl's parents came to the house of p. W. 1 and insisted to see the girl. On 30-10-1989 A-1 arranged to see the said girl and she asked the deceased to come in her best by wearing a best saree and jewelleries so as to impress upon the members of the girl's family. When the deceased was dressing herself, P. W. 1 had observed and seen the deceased putting on Mangala Sutra with golden thread with three lakshmi Kasu studded with stones, Addige Sara studded with white stones, six gold bangles and ear studs studded with american diamonds, nose stud and wrist watch and a coral embedded gold ring. She also wore a silk saree with green border. The deceased left the house at 3. 55 p. m. stating that she would go to A-1's house and from there she would go to koramangala along with A-l. P. W. 1 asked the deceased to come to his shop while returning from Koramangala. At about 8. 45 p. m. P. W. 1 and his son Suresh were in the shop on 30-10-1989. He was expecting his wife at anytime from Koramangala to his shop. She did not come to his shop. P. W. 1 and his son P. W. 8 went to the house of A-1 and they saw that the door of A-1's house was closed. P. W. 8 went to his brother-in-law's house situated at a distance of about 500 yards. Again P. W. 1 made an enquiry with A-1 who replied that the deceased had not come to her house. P. W. 8 went to his brother-in-law's house situated at a distance of about 500 yards. Again P. W. 1 made an enquiry with A-1 who replied that the deceased had not come to her house. On the first occasion when P. W. 1'went to the house of A-1, he saw her throwing something into Nala and as soon as she saw him, she started shivering holding her hands on her cheek. She also told him that she was having some tonsillitis and fever. Again at about 9. 20 p. m. or 9. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 went to a-1's house and saw her husband-A-2 sitting in the Hall with his daughter and A-1 washing some bed sheet. Seeing P. W. 1, A-1 came to him after dropping the bed sheet. On seeing this, P. W. 1 told A-1 that "you told me that you were suffering from tonsillitis and fever and why are you washing the clothes?", for which A-1 replied that it was her mensus period as such she had more bleeding and she was washing bed sheets. P. W. 1 again enquired with her as to whether his wife had been to her house. A-1 told him that she had not met the deceased for the last one month. Hearing this reply, P. W. 1 left the house of A-1. Thereafter, P. W. 1 went to Ulsoor Police Station and gave a missing complaint as per Ex. P-1. After lodging the complaint, p. W. 1 and his sons made hectic efforts to trace the deceased by visiting various places, but of no avail. On the next day, P. W. 1 and his sons enquired with the neighbours as to whether they had seen the deceased on the previous day. This enquiry led to the discovery that one Rathna (P. W. 22) had seen the deceased going to the house of A-1. P. W. 2-Satish Kumar also told P. W. 1 that on 31-10-1989 he saw the deceased in the house of A-1 talking to her. On his way to the police station, P. W. 1 met P. W. 3, Veerendra Babu who also told him that he saw the dejceased in the house of A-1 at about 4. 10 p. m. On 30-10-1989 at about 5 or 5. On his way to the police station, P. W. 1 met P. W. 3, Veerendra Babu who also told him that he saw the dejceased in the house of A-1 at about 4. 10 p. m. On 30-10-1989 at about 5 or 5. 15 p. m. A-1 had come to the house of P. W. 4-Shantha and left her daughter in her house stating that she was going to send her relatives to bus stand and as such her daughter would remain in the house of P. W. 4 till she returned. When A-1 did not return till 7. 15 p. m. A-1's daughter told P. W. 4 that she would go to her house. She also expressed that she was afraid of going alone. So, P. W. 4 and p. W. 20-Naveen Kumar, who was also playing with A-1's daughter-Nandini went with A-1's daughter to the house of A-1. P. W. 4 saw the door and window of A-1's house closed and told nandini that her mother might not have returned yet, for which. Nandini replied that her mother was in the house as she could see the fan running. Then, all of them, went near the house and p. W. 4 pressed the calling bell. A-1 did not open the door for five minutes. Then A-1 asked from inside as to who had come. A-1 about five minutes later opened the door and took her daughter inside and told P. W. 4 and P. W. 20 to wait for some time. Again after five minutes, she opened the door and let them inside. P. W. 4 sat on a chair and P. W. 20 and Nandini started playing by bursting crackers. A-1 told P. W. 4 that she was having fever and so P. W. 4 should accompany her to the doctor. A-1 observed that she had put on the saree on the reverse side and she said she would wear it correctly. At that time P. W. 4 observed blood on her leg and pointed out the same to A-1. A-1 replied that she had abortion and that might be the reason for the blood on her leg. After locking the door, A-1 washed the leg with tap water inside the compound and all of them walked towards R. B. A. N. M. S. hospital. A-1 replied that she had abortion and that might be the reason for the blood on her leg. After locking the door, A-1 washed the leg with tap water inside the compound and all of them walked towards R. B. A. N. M. S. hospital. Near Padmini Cycle shop, A-1 and A-2 had talked for five minutes in low voice. After that they went to the hospital and A-1 went inside the consulting room of P. W. 5, Dr. Kamala chandrashekaf. A-1 told P. W. 5 that some dog had bitten her. P. W. 5 examined A-1 in her clinic and prescribed some tablets. P. W. 5 did not find any wound on A-1's body and there were no marks of dog biting or any scratch mark on the leg of A-1. A-1 was shivering and nervous when P. W. 5 examined her. A-1 afterwords, showed the prescription given by P. W. 5 to A-2 and he asked P. W. 4 to go with A-1 and that he would bring the tablets. By the time they reached the house of A-1, A-2 was already present at the gate. After leaving A-1 in her house, P. W. 4 and P. W. 20 returned to their house. While returning P. W. 20 naveen Kumar told P. W. 4 that he saw something under the cot of A-1's bedroom. On 31-10-1989 at about 9. 00 p. m. P. W. 1-Ganesh, P. W. 3-Veerendra Babu went to Ulsoor Police Station and handed over the typed complaint-Ex. P-2. P. W. 23-S. R. Vijaya Kumar, sub-Inspector of Police of Ulsoor Police Station registered second f. I. R. in the same crime number for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and submitted the second F. I. R. along with the first f. I. R. in Cr. No. 664 of 1989 to the jurisdictional Magistrate through P. C. 6889. P. W. 23 deputed P. W. 21-Veerabhadrappa. A. S. I. and a woman P. C.- P. W. 18-Ratnamma, to secure the presence of A-1. On the same day at about 10. 15 p. m. P. W. 21 and P. W. 18 produced A-1 before P. W. 23. P. W. 23 recorded the voluntary statement of A-1 as per Ex. P-11, after arresting her, A-1 volunteered to point out the dead body of the deceased-Rajeshwari and also volunteered to produce the ornaments, saree, etc. On the same day at about 10. 15 p. m. P. W. 21 and P. W. 18 produced A-1 before P. W. 23. P. W. 23 recorded the voluntary statement of A-1 as per Ex. P-11, after arresting her, A-1 volunteered to point out the dead body of the deceased-Rajeshwari and also volunteered to produce the ornaments, saree, etc. , if she was taken to her house. Accordingly, A-1 led P. W. 23 and his staff as well as the panch witnesses to her house situate at No. 2 (old No. 23) 4th Cross, gupta Layout, Ulsoor. As soon as the Jeep reached her house,. A-1 got down and led them to her house by opening the lock. P. W. 23 also secured the goldsmith-P. W. 6 N. V. Nataraj Achar to the house of A-1. A-1 led P. W. 23 and his staff and the panchas to her bedroom and showed the dead body of the deceased which was under the cot in the said bedroom. The dead body was covered in two gunny bags (M. Os. 1 and 2 ). A-1 removed the gunny bags and showed the dead body of the deceased and the same was identified by P. W. 1 and his sons as that of rajeshwari. There was only white petty coat and bra and coloured blouse (M. Os. 3 to 5) on the body of the deceased. The deceased had sustained injuries on head, face and back. A-1 thereafter led them to bath room of her house. She brought one ash Tin containing gold ornaments viz. , Mangalaya, gold chain, gold necklace, six gold bangles, one gold ring studded with havala and a pair of ear studs of American diamonds (M. Os. 16 to 20 ). The above gold ornaments were identified by P. W. 1 and his sons. Those gold ornaments were tested and weighed by the goldsmith-P. W. 6-Nataraj Achar. P. W. 23 seized all these articles. The photographs of the dead body were also taken. A-1 also produced Steel Lamp (Deepada Kamba), one stainless steel bucket and a steel plate, (M. Os. 6 to 8) from the kitchen before P. W. 23. The Deepada Kamba and steel bucket were stained with blood. The names of Geetha, Ganesh and kumaraswamy were engraved on M. Os. 6 to 8. These articles were also seized and sealed. A-1 also produced Steel Lamp (Deepada Kamba), one stainless steel bucket and a steel plate, (M. Os. 6 to 8) from the kitchen before P. W. 23. The Deepada Kamba and steel bucket were stained with blood. The names of Geetha, Ganesh and kumaraswamy were engraved on M. Os. 6 to 8. These articles were also seized and sealed. A-1 took out a silk saree (M. O. 11) from an Almirah from a polythene cover. There were bloodstains on it also. It was identified by P. W. 1 and his sons as belonging to the deceased. P. W. 23 seized the silk saree. A-1 also produced one Synthetic Rose colour Saree (M. O. 9) belonging to her. It was also bloodstained. She also produced a langa (M. O. 10) P. W. 23 seized M. Os. 9 and 10. P. W. 23 also collected the bloodstains clotted on the floor of the bedroom below the cot in a mud pot. A-1 also pointed out the passage inside her house which leads to her bedroom. P. W. 23 found the bloodstains on the wall of the passage. He scriped those bloodstains and collected the same in a mud pot (M. O. 14) and the same was sealed. A-1 also took P. W. 23 and the panchas to a Public Gutter (Channel) and picked up a white blouse (M. O. 12) and wrist watch (M. O. 21 ). She also told that M. O. 12-blouse belonged to her. P. W. 23 packed the said blouse in a white cloth bag and sealed it with a metallic seal. The wrist watch (M. O. 21) was showing the time as 6. 30 and it had gold coloured chain and it was broken at one end. The said watch was identified by P. W. 1 and his sons as that of Rajeshwari which she was wearing on 30-10-1989 and the same was also seized. P. W. 23 prepared a seizure Mahazar as per Ex. P-3 and it was duly signed by the panch witnesses. On 1-11-1989 at about 2 p. m. P. W. 24 along with P. W. 23 went to the house of A-1 after securing panch witnesses namely p. W. 2-Satish Kumar, P. W. 3-Veerendra Babu and P. W. 6-Nataraj Achar and conducted the inquest proceedings as per ex. P-4 over the dead body of the deceased. On 1-11-1989 at about 2 p. m. P. W. 24 along with P. W. 23 went to the house of A-1 after securing panch witnesses namely p. W. 2-Satish Kumar, P. W. 3-Veerendra Babu and P. W. 6-Nataraj Achar and conducted the inquest proceedings as per ex. P-4 over the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, P. W. 24 secured the presence of P. W. 19-Gopal Setty, p. C-cum-photographer and got the photos of the body of the deceased. Then the body was sent to Victoria Hospital for post-mortem examination through P. W. 15-Manjunath-P. C. No. 7193. On 1-11-1989 at about 2 p. m. P. W. 17-Dr. S. B. Patil after receipt of the requisition conducted post-mortem examination and issued a certificate as per Ex. P-10. P. W. 17 opined that the death was due to coma as a result of head injury and the injuries were ante-mortem and fresh in nature. On 6-11-1989, P. W. 24 received the post-mortem report Ex. P-10 from P. W. 17. All articles received from Victoria Hospital were subjected to p. F-No. 234 of 1989. On 16-11-1989 P. W. 24 gave a requisition to F. S. L. and sent the steel lamp, bucket and plate for examination and report through P. W. 16. On 17-11-1989 he sent the requisition letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Building Sub-Division, with a request to visit the spot and prepare a sketch of the scene of offence. P. W. 7 visited the spot on 14-1-1990 and prepared a sketch as per Ex. P-5. On 6-12-1989 P. W. 24 received all the articles from F. S. L. and gave it to P. W. 17-Dr. S. B. Patil to examine the weapons and to give his opinion. P. W. 17 has opined that the lacerated wound could be caused by steel bucket and oil lamp and contusion found on the dead body could be caused by steel bucket. After examining the articles, he gave his opinion as per Ex. P-11. On 16-12-1989 P. W. 25-Moodlayya, Police Inspector, Central crime Branch, Bangalore City took up further investigation from P. W. 24. On 27-12-1989 P. W. 25 arrested A-2 at Cottonpet at 6. 30 p. m. On 28-12-1989 A-2 was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. On 19-1-1990 P. W. 25 received the sketch Ex. P-5 prepared by p. W. 7. On 27-12-1989 P. W. 25 arrested A-2 at Cottonpet at 6. 30 p. m. On 28-12-1989 A-2 was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. On 19-1-1990 P. W. 25 received the sketch Ex. P-5 prepared by p. W. 7. He also received F. S. L. report Ex. P-15 and serologist report Ex. P-16. P. W. 25 also secured lease agreement Ex. P-8 and copy of the notice Ex. P-9 from P. W. 13-Yashoda. On 24-1-1990 P. W. 25 submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the commission of the aforesaid offence. ( 9 ) AS far as homicide death is concerned, even Mr. Poovaiah, the learned Advocate for the accused has not disputed. However, it is made abundantly clear that after inquest the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P. W. 17-S. B. Patil has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:1. Laceration present over right side forehead 2 c. m. from id-line and 1. 5 c. m. above eye brow measuring 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x bone deep;2. Laceration present over the right side forehead situated 1. 4 c. m. above the level of outer end of right eye brow measuring 2 c. m. x 1 c. m. x bone deep;3. Abrasion over left side face just enter to eye brow measuring 1x1 c. m. ;4. Abrasion over left side chin measuring 3 c. m. in diameter;5. Abrasion over right cheek measuring 3 x 3. 5 c. m;6. Laceration over right side chin measuring 2x1x1 c. m;7. Laceration over dorsum of right hand outer aspect measuring 3x1x1 c. m. and other internal injuries. ( 10 ) HE opined that the death was due to coma as a result of head injury sustained by the deceased. He has further opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and fresh in nature and the lacerated wound could be caused by steel bucket and oil lamp and the contusion found on the dead body could be caused by the steel bucket-M. O. 8. He has further opined that if a person is assaulted with a steel lamp like M. O. 6 and steel bucket-M. O. 8 injuries shown in Ex. P-10 could be caused. In view of these findings, it goes without saying that the deceased met with homicidal death. ( 11 ) MR. He has further opined that if a person is assaulted with a steel lamp like M. O. 6 and steel bucket-M. O. 8 injuries shown in Ex. P-10 could be caused. In view of these findings, it goes without saying that the deceased met with homicidal death. ( 11 ) MR. Poovaiah, learned Counsel for the accused tried to make out a case that A-1 and A-2 were not at all residing in a house at No. 2 (old No. 23 ). This submission is not appealable to us because that there was a lease agreement as per Ex. P-8. This agreement had been entered into between A-2 and Yashoda P. W. 13. Ex. P-9 is also a notice issued by P. W. 13. In addition to these documentary evidence, the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 20 and 22 makes it abundantly clear that A-1 and A-2 were residing in the said house. ( 12 ) NOW it is to be seen whether the prosecution is able to establish the incriminating circumstance to establish the guilt of a-1 beyond reasonable doubt. ( 13 ) IT is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1 that A-1 had become friendly with his wife as both of them used to meet at karumariamman Temple. It is also in the evidence of P. W. 1 that his grandson was studying in St. Meera School wherein the daughter of A-1 was also studying. The deceased and A-1 used to meet during lunch hours. Their frequent meetings developed into friendship. A-1 proposed her youngest sister to the third son of the deceased and the same was rejected. Even after rejection, a-1 was telling and suggesting one or the other proposals to p. W. 8. P. W. 1 rejected the proposals on the ground that P. W. 8 was not only young but also had recently entered into services. A-1 had mentioned before the deceased that there was a girl in koramangala. Family of that girl also knew the family of P. W. 1. As such, she requested to see bride. Even the parents of that girl had come and insisted P. W. 1 and the deceased to see bride. The deceased had agreed to see that girl. P. W. 1 had not objected the deceased for the same. A-1 requested the deceased to dress well and also to wear all costly jewelleries. As such, she requested to see bride. Even the parents of that girl had come and insisted P. W. 1 and the deceased to see bride. The deceased had agreed to see that girl. P. W. 1 had not objected the deceased for the same. A-1 requested the deceased to dress well and also to wear all costly jewelleries. The evidence of P. W. 1 also shows that about 3. 30 p. m. or so, his wife was dressing and wearing the jewelleries. It is also in his evidence that she opened the Almirah and put the jewelleries on her person. It is further in his evidence that his wife was having gold thread Mangala sutra with 3 Lakshmi Gold Kasu (Coins) studded with stones. He also states that she put on Addige Sara on her person, 6 gold bangles, American diamond Ear stud, Nose stud and wrist watch and coral embedded gold ring. The deceased had also worn the silk saree with green border. P. W. 1 told his wife to get down near their shop while returning from Koramangala after seeing the bride. The deceased told him that while returning from koramangala, bride parents might drop her and A-1 in their car. So saying the deceased left her house at 3. 55 p. m. and went to a-1's house. ( 14 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 9 that at about 4 p. m. he met the deceased and on enquiry, she told him that she was going to the house of A-1 as she was to go to Koramangala along with a-1. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 9 that he met the deceased Rajeshwari on Nala Road and had a talk with her. It is also in his evidence that the deceased was well-dressed on that day and also was wearing gold ornaments on her person. On seeing this, he made an enquiry whether she was going to attend deepawali Festival in somebody's house. The deceased answered stating that she was going to see a girl for her third son and further she told him that she was going to the house of A-1 geetha, as A-1 would take her to Koramangala to see a girl for her son. He wished her good luck and went to his friend's house. The deceased answered stating that she was going to see a girl for her third son and further she told him that she was going to the house of A-1 geetha, as A-1 would take her to Koramangala to see a girl for her son. He wished her good luck and went to his friend's house. ( 15 ) P. W. 11-Chandrakanthamma although has turned hostile has supported the prosecution case in part. It is in her evidence that at about 4 p. m. she saw the deceased going on the road in front of her house. At that time she was standing near the front door of her house. The deceased made an enquiry with her whether she had coffee for which, she nodded. The evidence of p. Ws. 9 and 11 clearly speaks that the deceased Rajeshwari was on her way to the house of A-1. The evidence of P. Ws. 9 and 11 is also supported by the evidence of P. W. 22 who states that at about 4 p. m. on the date of the incident, she had been to plantain-mandy from the house of Kannaiah Naidu to bring plantain. While she was returning after the purchase of plantain, she saw the deceased going towards the house of geetha. The deceased went into the house of A-1. it is also in her evidence that she saw A-1-Geetha inviting Rajeshwari to her house. So, the evidence of P. W. 22 goes to show that the deceased rajeshwari reached the house of A-1. ( 16 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 clearly speaks the presence of the deceased in the house of A-1. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that on the date of the incident, at about 3 p. m. , he visited the house of his paternal uncle by name R. Arunachalam, who is residing at 4th Cross, Gupta Layout. The said house is in the opposite lane of the house of A-1. He went to the house of arunachalam as his would-be son-in-law was leaving for hyderabad at about 4 p. m. and would-be son-in-law and his family left the house of Arunachalam in a car to Railway station. The said house is in the opposite lane of the house of A-1. He went to the house of arunachalam as his would-be son-in-law was leaving for hyderabad at about 4 p. m. and would-be son-in-law and his family left the house of Arunachalam in a car to Railway station. After leaving them, his uncle entered inside the house and P. W. 2 left the house of his uncle and went towards the shop which is adjacent to Nala to buy a cigarette. After buying the same, he returned to his house. The house of A-1 is visible to the road. When he entered the road, he saw the deceased (wife of p. W. 1) sitting in the hall facing the road in the house of A-1. The deceased saw and smiled at him. He also smiled at rajeshwari. At that time, A-1 was standing by the side of rajeshwari. Then he went home. ( 17 ) IT is also in the evidence of P. W. 3-Veerendra Babu that on 30-10-1989 he was coming from his office towards his house. It was a Balipadyami Day. At about 4. 10 or 4. 15 p. m. he passed on the road where the residence of A-1 and A-2 is situated. He has to pass necessarily on that road even to go to his office and to return from his office to his house. While he was going on the said road he saw the deceased Rajeshwari sitting in the house of a-1 at about 4. 10 or 4. 15 p. m. She was sitting in the front hall of the house of A-1 and the deceased was talking to A-1. The evidence of P. Ws. 9, 11 and 22 establishes the fact that the deceased was going towards the house of A-1 and further the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 makes it crystal clear that the deceased was present very much in the house of A-1. At the very outset it is to be noted that these witnesses are quite independent. There was no animocity; there were no antecedents; there were no previous quarrels between the accused and these witnesses. Even in the cross-examination nothing is suggested to show that at least there is a possibility of element of doubt in the veracity of their testimony. Hence, we are inclined to place our reliance on the testimony of these witnesses. There was no animocity; there were no antecedents; there were no previous quarrels between the accused and these witnesses. Even in the cross-examination nothing is suggested to show that at least there is a possibility of element of doubt in the veracity of their testimony. Hence, we are inclined to place our reliance on the testimony of these witnesses. We are also inclined to hold that in view of the evidence of P. W. 1, the deceased Rajeshwari left her house to go to the house of A-1 after getting herself well-dressed and adorning herself with gold ornaments. We are also inclined to hold that the deceased was going towards the house of A-1, her going towards the house of A-1 was witnessed by P. Ws. 9,11 and 22 and further we would hold that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 inspires to the fact that the deceased was very much present in the house of A-1. ( 18 ) THE prosecution is also able to place on record that at about 5 or 5. 30 p. m. on 30-10-1989 A-1 went to the house of P. W. 4 and left her daughter on the pretext of taking her relatives to the bus stand. Patently this version was wrong and it was known to A-1. It is in the evidence of P. W. 4 that on 30-10-1989 at about 5 or 5. 15 p. m. , A-1 came to her house along with her daughter and sat for about five minutes. A-1 told her that some of her relatives had come from Hosur and that she had to send them to the bus stand, and also requested that her daughter would remain in the house of P. W. 4 till she returned. But it is further in the evidence of P. W. 4 that A-1 did not return to her house till 7. 15 p. m. The daughter of A-1 told her that she wanted to go to her house. P. W. 4 told the young girl to go to her house. But that girl told that she was afraid of going to her house alone. On hearing this, P. W. 4, her uncle's son-Naveen Kumar and the daughter of A-1 together went to the house of A-1 at about 7. 20 p. m. or so. P. W. 4 told the young girl to go to her house. But that girl told that she was afraid of going to her house alone. On hearing this, P. W. 4, her uncle's son-Naveen Kumar and the daughter of A-1 together went to the house of A-1 at about 7. 20 p. m. or so. P. W. 4 saw the door, windows of the house of A-1 being closed. Then she also told A-1's daughter that her mother might not have returned home. A-1's daughter told and confirmed that her mother was in her house since the fan in her house was running and also she had seen running of the fan through the window. Then all the three went to the house of A-1 and pressed the calling bell. But there was no response immediately. Ultimately, the door was opened for about 5 minutes. Then A-1 from inside the house only questioned as to who was standing outside. Then the daughter of A-1 stated that she had come. Then about 5 minutes later A-1 opened the door and took her daughter only inside. But told P. W. 4 to wait for a minute. So saying she closed the front door and went inside after about 5 minutes again she opened the door and asked her to come inside. Then P. W. 4 and P. W. 20 went inside the house of a-1. P. W. 4 was asked to sit on the chair in the hall. P. W. 20 and daughter of A-1 played together by burning crackers. At that time, A-1 told that she would also come with her to go to Doctor's shop. At that time, P. W. 4 noticed that A-1 was not wearing saree properly as she had put on her saree at reverse. She also saw some bloodstains on the leg of A-1. On enquiry A-1 told her that she had suffered abortion and for that reason, she wanted to go to Doctor for treatment. It is pertinent to note that at this juncture only, A-1 never discussed about her relatives and about her going to the bus stand. It goes to show about the conduct of a-1 that she did not want to commit anything in the presence of her daughter. It is pertinent to note that at this juncture only, A-1 never discussed about her relatives and about her going to the bus stand. It goes to show about the conduct of a-1 that she did not want to commit anything in the presence of her daughter. Just to avoid the presence of her daughter, in all probabilities, she must have thought of leaving her daughter in the house of P. W. 4. The only explanation is that she wanted to go to the bus stand to leave her relatives. It is patently a false suggestion that she had been to the bus stand along with her relatives. Even if she wanted to go to the bus stand there is no convincing reason to leave her daughter in the house of P. W. 4. She could have also taken her daughter to the bus stand. ( 19 ) AS A-1 insisted, P. W. 4 remained back. Then A-1 locked her house and washed her leg by using the tap water which was near her house. Then all of them went to R. B. A. N. M. S. Hospital situated in Bazaar Street, Ulsoor. While they were going on the road near Padmini Cycle Shop, the husband of A-1 i. e. , A-2 came. On seeing A-2, his daughter Nandini told him that her mother was not well and hence they were all going to the hospital. P. W. 4 told A-1 that since her husband had come, she would go to the Hospital with him. But A-1 insisted to accompany her till the Hospital. Before reaching the Hospital, near Padmini Cycle Shop, A-1 sat down and A-1 had a talk with a-2 for about 5 minutes. P. W. 4 could not hear what was transpired between A-1 and A-2. Then they went to the Hospital. ( 20 ) A-1 gave a false explanation that she had a dog bite be fore P. W. 5-Dr. Kamala Chandrashekar. It is in the evidence of P. W. 5 that on 30-10-1989 at about 7. 30 p. m. A-1 along with her husband came to her clinic and complained that she had some fever and shivering. She also informed that she had a dog bite. But there were no marks of biting at all. Since she was shivering and nervous, the Doctor P. W. 5 examined and gave some prescription. 30 p. m. A-1 along with her husband came to her clinic and complained that she had some fever and shivering. She also informed that she had a dog bite. But there were no marks of biting at all. Since she was shivering and nervous, the Doctor P. W. 5 examined and gave some prescription. At this juncture, it is to be noted that A-1 was trying her best to come out of the net. She was making hectic efforts to give number of explanations. But to overcome one false explanation, she had to manipulate another one. In the instant case, as it is observed that she had some relatives and she wanted to go to the bus stand to see them off. All were false. Even before the Doctor she made a representation that she had dog bite and admittedly this was also false. She gave an explanation before P. W. 4 when enquired about the presence of the blood that she had abortion. If that is so what prevented from explaining the same before the Doctor. It is also in the evidence of P. W. 5 that A-1 was shivering and she was nervous. Naturally being a lady, after committing gruesome act, she must have become nervous. These circumstances are also helpful to clinch the issue against A-1. ( 21 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 20 that he had accompanied P. W. 4 to go to the house of A-1. Both Nandini, daughter of A-1 and himself were playing even after going to the house of A-1. They were burning crackers. He also corroborates the evidence of p. W. 4 going to the Hospital. Before going to the Hospital, he saw the dead body of a female. It is in his evidence that he went to the bedroom of the house of A-1 to pick out some toys. It is the natural propensity of young children to go in search of the toys whether it is their house or somebody else's house. It is not surprising as to why he would have gone there. He has offered an explanation that he went inside the bedroom in search of a ball. When he bent he saw the dead body of a female. Then he took Nandini also and showed the dead body but Nandini did not tell anything about the dead body. It is not surprising as to why he would have gone there. He has offered an explanation that he went inside the bedroom in search of a ball. When he bent he saw the dead body of a female. Then he took Nandini also and showed the dead body but Nandini did not tell anything about the dead body. He came out of the bedroom to the hall. He picked out a stone and even it was bloodstained. He picked out that stone for the purpose of bursting the crackers. At the same time, P. W. 4 saw the bloodstains on the leg of Geetha A-1. A-1 told P. W. 4 that she had the abortion. As such there were stains on the legs. The evidence of P. W. 20 corroborates the evidence of P. W. 4 on all the aspects spoken to by her. The evidence of P. W. 20 clinches the issue to the effect that he saw the dead body of a female in the bedroom of A-1 and also he had seen the legs in the gunny bag. ( 22 ) P. W. 1 was quite anxiously waiting for the return of his wife as she did not come. He came to the house of A-1 and made enquiries. A-1 was quite smart enough to deny the arrival of his wife. While P. W. 1 was going to the house of A-1, he saw her throwing something in the gutter. He asked Geetha to stop. As soon as she saw his face she started shivering holding her hands on her cheeks. She told him that she was having some tonsillitis trouble and fever since 3 or 4 days. So saying she opened the front door of the house and went inside. Then he returned to his house and asked his sons to see whether the deceased rajeshwari was in the house of his brother-in-law. They told him that she was not there. Again at about 9. 20 p. m. or 9. 30 p. m. , p. W. 1 went to A-1's house. At that time, the front door of her house was opened. Her husband A-2 was sitting in the hall on a chair with his daughter. While entering into the front door, he could see the bathroom of the house of A-1 who was washing some bed sheet. He called A-1. At that time, the front door of her house was opened. Her husband A-2 was sitting in the hall on a chair with his daughter. While entering into the front door, he could see the bathroom of the house of A-1 who was washing some bed sheet. He called A-1. She asked him to wait for sometime. Afterwards, she came after dropping the bed sheet. Then he questioned her stating that she told him that she was suffering from fever and tonsillitis and now she was washing clothes and further told her that what was wrong with her. She told him in a low voice that her husband should not hear, that her monthly course commenced and she was having more bleeding. As such she was washing the bed sheets. P. W. 1 told a-1 that his wife was to go to Koramangala at 4 p. m. to see a girl for which, A-1 replied that she did not see his wife since one month till the date of the incident. When she told him this, she was shivering and she was not steady and her cheeks were trembling. ( 23 ) P. W. 1 then went to Ulsoor Police Station and lodged amissing complaint as per Ex. P-1. P. W. 21, the Police sub-Inspector told P. W. 1 that he would inform the other Police stations also about the missing of his wife. ( 24 ) THEN along with his sons, he hired a taxi and visited Bowring Hospital, Victoria Hospital, NIMHANS and koramangala Police Station in search of his wife thinking that she might have met with an accident. She was not found in any of the places. The search went on upto 4. 00 a. m. and it was of no avail. ( 25 ) ON the next day morning i. e. , 31-10-1989 P. W. 1 started making enquiries with his neighbourers whether they had seen his wife moving in their locality. That time, P. W. 22, a maid servant by name Rathna who was working in the house of one naidu whose house is situated near his house told them that she saw his wife going to the house of A-1 on 30-10-1989 at about 4. 00 p. m. He again went to Ulsoor Police Station and reported the matter to the Police. The hectic efforts were made to search the deceased. 00 p. m. He again went to Ulsoor Police Station and reported the matter to the Police. The hectic efforts were made to search the deceased. P. W. 2 who was residing near the locality of P. W. 1 told him that he had also seen his wife sitting in the house of A-1 at about 4. 15 p. m. on 30-10-1989. On the way, he went near a circle where he met P. W. 3-Veerendra Babu, an Advocate who is staying in Gupta Layout. P. W. 3 also told that he had seen the deceased sitting in the house of A-1 on 30-10-1989, in the evening while he was passing on the road. P. W. 3 also told him to come to his office to lodge a complaint before Ulsoor Police station. As such, P. W. 1 went to the office of P. W. 3. P. W. 3 typed the complaint in English and P. W. 1 handed over the same to the Police, P. W. 23 (Police Sub-Inspector) at 9. 10 a. m. After the second complaint, the Police entertained suspicion and felt that there was something fishy about A-1's conduct. As such she was summoned to the Police Station through P. W. 18. After recording the statements of P. Ws. 1 and 2, P. W. 23 decided to send him for A-1 again. ( 26 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 18 that on 31-10-1989, Police Sub-Inspector Vijayakumar (P. W. 23) called her and A. S. I. , veerabhadrappa and told them to go to House No. 2, 4th Cross, gupta Layout, Ulsoor and bring A-1 to the Police Station. Accordingly, they went to the house of A-1 at about 9. 30 a. m. , who was present there. They also expressd as to why they were present. Then A-1 locked the door of her house and came along with them to the Police Station in an autorickshaw. They reached Ulsoor Police Station at about 10 a. m. Then A-1 was produced before the Police Sub-Inspector who interrogated A-1. A-1 was once summoned to the Police Station at 7 p. m. on 30-10-1989 in pursuance of Ex. P-1. When she was brought for the second time, she was interrogated in length. They reached Ulsoor Police Station at about 10 a. m. Then A-1 was produced before the Police Sub-Inspector who interrogated A-1. A-1 was once summoned to the Police Station at 7 p. m. on 30-10-1989 in pursuance of Ex. P-1. When she was brought for the second time, she was interrogated in length. ( 27 ) A-1 volunteered the statement that she would show the dead body of the deceased and also produce the ornaments, saree if she was taken to her house. The voluntary statement was as per Ex. P-1 Kb) (relevant portion is taken ). In pursuance of the voluntary statement, A-1 led P. W. 23, his staff, the panch witnesses Bachappa, Satish Kumar, Sitaram, Veerendra Babu and complainant, to her house at house No. 2, 4th Cross, Gupta layout, Ulsoor. They all went in a Police jeep. She asked them to stop there. Then she got down and then led them to her house and also took them inside her house. P. W. 23 also sent his Police constable Srinivas to secure a Goldsmith, Nataraja Achar (P. W. 6 ). A-1 had the key of her house. She only opene_d the door by using the key with her hand. Light was on in her house. First a-1 led them to her bedroom. Then she showed the dead body of the deceased which was under the cot in the bedroom. The dead body was covered by two gunny bags. The head was inserted in one gunny bag and the other portion of the body was inserted in another gunny bag. Around the waist of the dead body gunny thread was tied. A-1 removed the gunny bags. The complainant (P. W. 1) and his sons identified the dead body as that of rajeshwari. The gold ornaments were missing except silver toe rings. P. W. 23 saw one white petti coat, one bra and two coloured blouse on the body of the deceased and also noticed injuries on the face, back and head injury on the dead body of the deceased. Tl blood was clotted on the floor of the bedroom. The gold ornaments were missing except silver toe rings. P. W. 23 saw one white petti coat, one bra and two coloured blouse on the body of the deceased and also noticed injuries on the face, back and head injury on the dead body of the deceased. Tl blood was clotted on the floor of the bedroom. A-1 thereafter led them and panchas to the bathroom of her house from where she brought one ash tin containing gold ornaments, such as, mangalya, gold chain, gold necklace, 6 gold bangles, one gold ring tied with one brown havala and one pair of ear studs (ole) of american Diamonds. The gold ornaments were also identified by the complainant and his sons. Those gold ornaments belonged to the deceased Rajeshwari. The gold ornaments were tested and weighed by the goldsmith. The gold chain weighed about 60 gms, the gold necklace weighed about 53 gms, 6 gold bangles weighed about 68 gms, gold ring weighed about 31/2 gms and one pair of gold ear ole (American Diamond) weighed about 8 gms. After proper identificaiton by the complainant and his sons, he seized those ornaments and put them in a white cloth bag and it was sealed. A-1 was also brought the steel lamp, one small stainless bucket and one stainless steel plate from the kitchen and produced them. The steel lamp and steel bucket were bent and were also stained with blood. They were also seized. ( 28 ) A-1 took a silk saree which was kept in a polythene cover from Almirah. He examined the silk saree and found lot of bloodstains on it. He saw the silk saree marked as M. O. 11. It was also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The saree was identified as that of Rajeshwari by the complainant and his sons. It was the same saree which was worn by the deceased on 30-10-1989 while she was left her house. A-1 was also produced one synthetic rose colour saree belonging to her. On examination, he was found that there were bloodstains. As such, it was also seized. Then he collected the bloodstains clotted on the floor of the bedroom below the cot and also collected the bloodstains in a small mud pot and put it in a cloth bag and sealed. Then A-1 pointed out the passage inside her house leading to her bedroom. As such, it was also seized. Then he collected the bloodstains clotted on the floor of the bedroom below the cot and also collected the bloodstains in a small mud pot and put it in a cloth bag and sealed. Then A-1 pointed out the passage inside her house leading to her bedroom. There were bloodstains on the walls of the passage. P. W. 23 scrapped those bloodstains and collected it in a small mud pot and covered it. Then again she led them to the place where the white blouse and Nino wrist watch thrown by her into the nearby channel. She led them to the channel and picked up the white blouse and wrist watch. He examined the wrist watch which was showing the time as 6. 30. The watch had a gold coloured chain and the chain was broken at one end. Those articles were also identified by P. W. 1 and his sons. By that time, it was already 2. 20 a. m. As the panch witnesses expressed their desire that it would be better if the investigation would continue on the next day. Hence P. W. 23 concluded his investigation and draw up the mahazar as per Ex. P-3. Ex. P-3 was duly signed by the panch witnesses, P. W. 1 and p. W. 8 to be very precise. The mahazar was signed by Harish babu, Ganesh, Seethararn, Nataraj Achar, Satish Kumar, veerendra Babu and Bachappan. In the meanwhile, the Circle inspector Govindaiah stated that he would take up the further investigation. So saying he directed P. W. 23 to post two Police constables to guard the scene of occurrence. Then A-1 was brought to the Police Station and was kept in the safe custody under the surveillance of woman Police Constable-P. W. 18. ( 29 ) SRI Poovaiah, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that P. W. 6 has turned hostile. As such no reliance can be placed. P. W. 6 is none other than a goldsmith. He was summoned only for weighing purpose and he weighed the ornaments, and the other panchas have supported the case of the prosecution. We do not see that the case of the prosecution becomes topsy-turvy for the non-support of P. W. 6. ( 30 ) IT is very pertinent to note that P. Ws. 1, 8 and 10 have been making hectic efforts to trace the deceased. We do not see that the case of the prosecution becomes topsy-turvy for the non-support of P. W. 6. ( 30 ) IT is very pertinent to note that P. Ws. 1, 8 and 10 have been making hectic efforts to trace the deceased. Since they were not successful even after 4. 00 a. m. on 30-10-1989, they had become panicky and started making enquiries with the neighbourers. They came to know about the movements from p. Ws. 3, 4, 9, 11 and 22. Again P. W. 1 went to the house of A-1 and made an enquiry. She flatly denied stating that she had not met his wife for one month and she did not come to her house on 30-10-1989. It is important to note that the place where he had seen A-1 for the first time. He saw A-1 near the channel. At that time when he made an enquiry she was shivering and her cheeks were trembling and she gave some reply. Again when p. W. 1 came to know about the movements of his wife, he did not spare any effort. Again, he went to the house of A-1 and found a-1 washing bed sheet in her bathroom. Naturally her conduct would create suspicion. At one breath she would say that she had mensus that too in a low voice and at another breath she says that she was not feeling well. P. W. 1 started doubting her bona fides. As such the second complaint came to see the light of the day with the aid of P. W. 3. At this stage only, it has to be noted that P. Ws. 2 and 3 are quite independent witnesses. Although P. W. 3 is by profession an Advocate nothing can be said against him. As a good Samaritan he has come to the aid of p. W. 1 because he himself typed the complaint cannot be the ground that he was out and out interested to falsely rope in A-1. Absolutely there is nothing in the cross-examination to show that either there was animocity or P. W. 3 had some grouse against A-1. In the absence of any materials it goes without saying that P. W. 3 was an independent witness so also is with the other independent witnesses. Absolutely there is nothing in the cross-examination to show that either there was animocity or P. W. 3 had some grouse against A-1. In the absence of any materials it goes without saying that P. W. 3 was an independent witness so also is with the other independent witnesses. After the second complaint was filed by A-1 in pursuance of the first complaint the Police thought that A-1 must have a hand in it. As such they sent P. W. 18, A. S. I. , and P. W. 21 to get A-1. On interrogation, A-1 volunteered the statement as per Ex. P-11 and in pursuance of it she has not only shown the dead body but also the ornaments and white blouse. ( 31 ) WHEN the case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that each link of the chain is complete. Nothing should be left to the surmises and conjuctures. Everything should be warded off and the Court should be fully convinced that it is the accused alone who is the culprit and none else. The lower Court also has observed in its judgment relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in chandmal and Another v State of Rajasthan. It reads as under:"it is well-settled that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and formally established. Secondly, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt". It is an uphill task for A-1 to explain the presence of the dead body of the deceased in her bedroom. ( 32 ) MR. That is to say the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt". It is an uphill task for A-1 to explain the presence of the dead body of the deceased in her bedroom. ( 32 ) MR. Poovaiah, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision in the case of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni v State of Maharashtra, wherein it is stated as follows:"the only circumstances that have been found established are that the deceased was last such alive in the company of the appellant on October 13, 1975 at about 6 p. m. and that the dead body of the deceased was found in the Ladni near the residential portion of the appellant in pargaonkar's wada. The said two circumstances, in our opinion, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and on the basis of these two circumstances alone, it cannot be held that the appellant was a party to the murder of the deceased. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 read with section 34,i. P. C. cannot therefore, be upheld". In the above cited decision, the dead body was recovered from a part of the building which was near to the portion occupied by the accused. The place of recovery however was not in exclusive possession of the accused. Recovery of the watch belonging to the deceased was also not satisfactory. In view of this, their Lordships have held that merely the evasive answers would not create any circumstance against the accused. It is held that the conviction merely on circumstances of last seen and the dead body was found near the portion of the building were not sufficient. But in this case, the circumstances are so strong and clinching. The place of the dead body where it was found was exclusively in possession of A-1. The movements of the deceased have been spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. Even P. Ws. 2 and 3 make it clear that the deceased was very much present in the house of A-1. When asked by P. W. 1, A-1 not only gave the evasive answers, but also conducted herself not in a natural way. It is also on the record that she has created some explanations which were really myth. Even P. Ws. 2 and 3 make it clear that the deceased was very much present in the house of A-1. When asked by P. W. 1, A-1 not only gave the evasive answers, but also conducted herself not in a natural way. It is also on the record that she has created some explanations which were really myth. In this case, it is an uphill task for A-1 to explain the presence of the dead body in her bedroom. It is not the case of A-1 that the place where the dead body was found was accessible to any other person. After all in her house, A-2 and her daughter were residing. The prosecution is able to establish the other circumstances against A-1. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Poovaiah that the circumstances so established are insufficient to hold A-1 guilty of the offence. ( 33 ) THE caution that we have to observe is, is there any circumstance which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. The another important circumstance against the accused is that the gold ornaments worn by the deceased were also found in the bathroom of A-1. They were also produced by her. This is also a strong circumstance against A-1. Even when A-1 is examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , she has not offered any explanation. The panch witnesses have supported the case except P. W. 6. We are also satisfied that the dead body and the ornaments were recovered at the instance of A-1. Another important circumstance is that of the blood group. The F. S. L. report is as per Ex. P-15 and the Serologist's report is as per Ex. P-16. The clothes M. Os. 5, 9 and 10 belonged to A-1 and the other clothes belonged to the deceased. But the Serologist's report shows that on the clothes of A-1 and on the clothes of the deceased, the bloodstains found belonged to 'b' group. The prosecution is also able to establish through P. W. 17 that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by steel lamp (M. O. 6) and oil lamp. The contusion found on the dead body could be caused by the steel bucket (M. O. 8 ). The prosecution is also able to establish through P. W. 17 that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by steel lamp (M. O. 6) and oil lamp. The contusion found on the dead body could be caused by the steel bucket (M. O. 8 ). P. W. 17 has further spoken that if a person is assaulted with steel lamp like M. O. 6 and steel bucket like M. O. 8, injuries could be caused as are caused to the deceased. ( 34 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has tried to make much about the timings of Ex. P-3. Ex. P-3 is a very important mahazar because, the dead body, the ornaments and the other articles are recovered. No doubt, it has come on the record that the mahazar commenced on 31-10-1989 at 10. 15 p. m. and terminated at 2. 20 a. m. on 1-11-1989. The whole contention of the learned Sessions judge is that A-1 was secured to the Police Station after the second complaint was filed and then she was interrogated. P. W. 23 must have taken some time for interrogation. After the interrogation, voluntary statement has to be reduced to writing. Then he has to commence the investigation to test the veracity of the statement made by A-1. According to him, it is an impossible thing to record the voluntary statement at 10. 15 p. m. itself and to commence the mahazar at the same time. Two things which are apart cannot be started at the same time. This is what he wants to import in the judgment. But in common parlance it must be understood that the jugglery of timings, after all, cannot cut the roots of the prosecution case. Nowhere tb. e defence has taken up the contention that A-1 was not at all summoned to the police Station after the second complaint was filed. Even A-1 either has not taken up any contention or has offered any explanation as to the presence of the dead body in her bedroom. Sometimes the laches of I. O. cannot be used as an aid to acquittal. It goes to show that A-1 was interrogated after she was summoned for the second time in pursuance of the second complaint which was filed at about 9. 10 p. m. We are also convinced that after interrogation, she has given the voluntary statement. Sometimes the laches of I. O. cannot be used as an aid to acquittal. It goes to show that A-1 was interrogated after she was summoned for the second time in pursuance of the second complaint which was filed at about 9. 10 p. m. We are also convinced that after interrogation, she has given the voluntary statement. All the witnesses in unequivocal terms have supported the mahazar. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the same because of mentioning of the time alone, the whole mahazar was concocted. Even the lower Court has gone to the extent that the mahazar must have taken place in the Police station itself. It cannot be believed at all. The dead body was found in the bedroom of A-1. The ornaments were produced. The learned Sessions Judge in his explanation stated that he was not happy with the recovery and cannot be accepted as it is beset of cogent reasons. Even the learned Sessions Judge has tried to disbelieve the version of P. W. 4 because she has stated in his cross-examination that she had been to the Police Station on 31-10-1989 at about 8. 20 p. m. A-1 was also present in the Police station and she was questioned by P. W. 23 the Investigating officer. It should not be forgotten that there was earlier missing complaint as per Ex. P-1. A-1 was also summoned to make an enquiry in pursuance of Ex. P-l. If the accused was present and if P. W. 4 was also present in the Police Station, there is nothing wrong. This itself cannot discredit the evidence of P. W. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that there was no reason for A-1 to make the statement before P. W. 5 that she had a dog bite. He has tried to explain that shivering might be due to fever. Nervousness also attributed to the same. But the other explanations when they are read along with this explanation, the conduct of A-1 is quite explicit. Hence, the learned Sessions judge is not justified in discarding the evidence of P. W. 5 also. No doubt, P. Ws. 1, 8 and 11 are the nearest relatives of the deceased. Merely on the basis of this their evidence cannot be discarded. The evidence of P. Ws. Hence, the learned Sessions judge is not justified in discarding the evidence of P. W. 5 also. No doubt, P. Ws. 1, 8 and 11 are the nearest relatives of the deceased. Merely on the basis of this their evidence cannot be discarded. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 clearly support the circumstances, namely, the presence of the deceased in the house of A-1. When all these circumstances are taken together as links we think that the chain is complete. Nothing is left to the surmises and conjuctures. It pointedly shows that it is A-1 alone and none else has committed the offence. There is no other hypothesis which can explain the innocence of the accused. ( 35 ) THE next point that arises is that whether the prosecution is able to establish the offence under Section 392,i. P. C. also. It appears that A-1 was much fascinated and infatuated by yellow metal. It is also on the record that although she failed in her attempts in respect of the alliances, she had not given up her efforts. On the date of the incident, she had coaxed the deceased to come to her house well-dressed wearing all the jewelleries. Her intention clearly was to knock off the ornaments. But unfortunately, she could not be successful in her mission without taking the life of the deceased. In view of this, the offence committed by her can be exclusively brought under Sections 302 and 392,i. P. C. ( 36 ) THE learned Government Pleader relied upon a case in Gulab Chand v State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held as under:"it is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. In the present case, it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the offences of murder and robbery can be drawn against the accused. Except an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused, which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of the case, it appears that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore, the presumption arising under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments". In the present case, A-1 has not able to explain her lawful possession of the ornaments of the deceased produced by her. Hence the recovery of the ornaments is also clinching the issue against a-1. It is also pertinent to note that the ornaments were recovered at an earliest possible of time. She could not have come into possession of these ornaments after committing the murder of the deceased. Hence the offence committed by A-1 squarely falls under Sections 302 and 392, I. P. C. As far as the offence under section 201, I. P. C. is concerned, it is clear that after commiting the offence, A-1 had tried to conceal the body in gunny bags underneath the cot, in addition to concealing the ornaments which were kept in the bathroom. She had also thrown watch and blouse of the deceased into the nala. These facts clearly establish that the offence under Section 201, I. P. C. has been committed. But the question is whether A-2 also should be held liable for this offence. She had also thrown watch and blouse of the deceased into the nala. These facts clearly establish that the offence under Section 201, I. P. C. has been committed. But the question is whether A-2 also should be held liable for this offence. Absolutely there is no evidence of whatsoever kind against A-2 except A-2 was present in the house on 30-10-1989 when P. W. 1 had visited for the second time. Only so much evidence to hold that A-2 was in hand in glove with A-1 to cause the disappearance of the evidence. Even A-2 was arrested on 27-12-1989. It is also pertinent to note that there was no charge against him either under Section 302 or under Section 392, I. P. C. Sri Poovaiah, learned Counsel for the respondents when asked about the question of sentence submits that since A-1 is a lady, she may be leniently dealt with as she is having a minor daughter. Since A-1 has committed an offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. , she has to undergo life imprisonment and minimum sentence under Section 392, I. P. C. , if the death is caused, is not less than seven years. In the light of the above observations, we pass the following order: we allow the appeal in part. The acquittal of A-2-A. Ganesh is confirmed. We set aside the acquittal of A-1-Smt. Geetha for the offences under Sections 302, 392 and 201, I. P. C. and convict her for the above stated offences. We sentence A-1 to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. , R. I. for seven years for the offence under Section 392 and R. I. for three years for the offence under Section 201, I. P. C. All the sentences shall run concurrently subject to set off. The set off may be given acting under Section 428, Cr. P. C. A-1 shall surrender forthwith to serve the sentence. --- *** --- .