Honble VERMA, J. – Two separate appeals arising out of the same judgment of conviction against the order of Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 15 of 190 in FIR dated 1.1.90 have been filed by both the convicts. The Sessions Judge vide order dated 25th of Feb., 1991 had convicted both the appellants under Secs. 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under Sec. 302 of the IPC and further were ordered to be sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 each under Sec. 201 of IPC. (2). The Facts leading to recording of the FIR by one Tag Singh were that his brother Chatra who was working for livelihood in Balotra was missing and on inqui- ries having been made by his son and his nephew they came to known that Bheem Singh and Mst. Dhapu were involved in some illegal relations. A suspicion had arisen in the mind of Tag Singh that Chatra might have been done with by these persons and therefore, these two appellants were confronted who initially denied of having any knowledge whatsoever of Chatra but later on, both of them admitted of murdering Chatra and burying him. Tag Singh got the FIR registered. On such information having been received, the police came into action immediately and the dead body was recovered at the instance of Bheem Singh appellant after digging it from the room of his house which dead body was duly identified by Tag Singh and Nathu Singh. After the medical examination it was found that the deceased had died because of strangulation and was later on buried. (3). The above prosecution story was proved by PW-1 Tag Singh, PW-2 Nenu Ram, PW-3 Nathu Singh, PW-12 Ugam Kanwar and others. The dead body was recovered from the room of Bheem Singh appellant in the presence of PW-4 Gill Singh and PW-5 Shankerlal which was dug out in the presence of these witnesses. (4). PW-3 Nathu Singh and PW-12 Ugam Kanwar are son and daughter from deceased Chatra and appellant Dhapu. (5). It has been proved on record by oral and medical evidence that deceased Chatra had died on account of unnatural reasons as is clear from the statement of Dr. Gulab Chand Vadera (PW-13) of Govt. (4). PW-3 Nathu Singh and PW-12 Ugam Kanwar are son and daughter from deceased Chatra and appellant Dhapu. (5). It has been proved on record by oral and medical evidence that deceased Chatra had died on account of unnatural reasons as is clear from the statement of Dr. Gulab Chand Vadera (PW-13) of Govt. Nahata Hospital who had examined the dead body of deceased Chatra. (6). Tag Singh as PW-1 has stated that son of Chatra, Nathu Singh had come to him and told him about the disappearance of Chatra and further had deposed that on making further enquiries it was admitted by both the appellants that they had done with Chatra. The reason given for such henious crime was about the objection taken by Chatra of the illicit relations between Bheem Singh and his wife Dhapu. (7). In the present case, the material witnesses are PW-3 Nathu Singh, the son of Dhapu and PW-12 Ugam Kanwar and the evidence of recovery of the dead body having been dug from the room belonging to Bheem Singh appellant which is said to have been made after the arrest of Bheem Singh in the presence of PW-4 Gill Singh and PW-5 Shankerlal. (8). From the depositions of PWs-1, 2, 3 & 12, it has not been brought out by way of any reliable evidence as to what part has been played by appellant Dhapu. The only statement given by PW- 12, the daughter of Dhapu is that on asking Bheem Singh and Dhapu both had admitted that they had committed a mistake. Nathu Singh (PW-3) has stated that the appellant Bheem Singh, on being asked in the fac- tory, had told him that the appellant Bheem Singh had killed Chatra by way of strangulation with a rope and had buried him in his room. Despite this fact, no action is taken immediately and it is after 2 or 3 days that he goes to his uncle Tagji and tells him the whole story regarding killing of the deceased by Bheem Singh. (9). The extra judicial confession has not been believed by the learned Ses- sions Judge and rightly so. The only circumstance which remains to be answered is as to how the dead body of Chatra is recovered from the room of Bheem Singh appellant. (9). The extra judicial confession has not been believed by the learned Ses- sions Judge and rightly so. The only circumstance which remains to be answered is as to how the dead body of Chatra is recovered from the room of Bheem Singh appellant. The recovery of dead body of Chatra from the room of Bheem Singh appellant has been fully proved by way of oral evidence and by way of medical evidence. In the circumstances of the case, where illicit relations have been proved between Dhapu and Bheem Singh, the appellants, and it has also been proved that Chatra had been objecting to the visits of appellant Bheem Singh to their house and on which account Bheem Singh had even given beating to deceased Chatra. These circumstances point out that Bheem Singh, to continue the illicit relations, might have decided to do away with Chatra and to accomplish his ambition did take the extreme step of killing Chatra and burying him in his house. There is no escape whatever of the fact that the dead body had been recovered from under the ground after digging it from the room of Bheem Singh. No defence has been produced to controvert this aspect. The witnesses of recovery are independent witnesses and are respectable of the village in whose presence the dead body has been recovered by digging from the room of Bheem Singh at his instance. All circumstantial evidence do point out, firmly an accusing finger towards Bheem Singh. Bheem Singh, therefore, has been rightly convicted under Sec. 302 of the IPC and the appeal No. 136/91 filed by Bheem Singh deserves to be dismissed. (10). Now, coming to the case of Dhapu appellant in Appeal No. 134/91 even though illicit relations have been proved by cogent evidence of the witnesses but none of the witness has stated in the evidence about Dhapu having participating or taking part in actual murder of Chatra. The extra judicial confession has been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no evidence on record to show that Dhapu knew or had taken any part in disappearance of the evidence which is pre requisite for invoking Sec. 201 of the IPC. Only because that Dhapu is said to have illicit relations with Bheem Singh, it cannot be presumed that Dhapu had actually taken part in murdering Chatra. There is no evidence on record to show that Dhapu knew or had taken any part in disappearance of the evidence which is pre requisite for invoking Sec. 201 of the IPC. Only because that Dhapu is said to have illicit relations with Bheem Singh, it cannot be presumed that Dhapu had actually taken part in murdering Chatra. No evidence on this aspect has been produced against Dhapu. There is missing link for connecting directly of Dhapu to the murder of Chatra and in the circumstances their being no reliable evidence, Smt. Dhapu is entitled to benefit of doubt and as such appeal No. 134/91 of Smt. Dhapu is to be accepted and conviction set aside and she has to be released forthwith until and unless she is required in any other case. (11) In the result, appeal filed by Bheem Singh D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 136 of 1991 is dismissed and appeal of Smt. Dhapu D.B. Criminal 134 of 1991, is accepted and her conviction is set aside and she is ordered to be released forthwith until and unless she is required in any case.