Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. Both these appellant have filed the appeal against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1985 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC, and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one year under Section 302/34, IPC. They have been also sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 201, IPC. Sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant No. 1 Ram Lakhan Rai is father of the deceased Bhikhani Kumari and appellant No. 2 Dauna Devi is her step mother. The case was instituted on a written report of Siya Devi, mother of the deceased, given to the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi. On the basis of the written report a formal FIR (Ext. 1) was drawn in this case. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against five accused persons, including these two appellants and during trial charges were framed under the aforesaid sections against them. Three accused were acquitted by the trial Court and these two appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that Siya Devi, the informant of this case and the mother of the deceased was married with Ram Lakhan Rai and out of their wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born. Thereafter her husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) fell in bad company and meted inhuman treatment of the informant, as a result of which she went to her maike. In spite of the efforts made by the informant, there was no effect on her husband and finally on 9.2.1981 accused Ram Lakhan Rai threw her out of the house. Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, who is his second wife. Then the informant filed a criminal case in which Ram Lakhan Rai had absconded. The informant had also filed a case of maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC against her husband and the appellant No. 1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he did not comply with the order and the informant filed a Misc. Case for its execution. Ext. 9 is certified copy of the order of Misc. Case No. 8 of 1981, Siya Devi V/s. Ram Lakhan Rai. Case for its execution. Ext. 9 is certified copy of the order of Misc. Case No. 8 of 1981, Siya Devi V/s. Ram Lakhan Rai. under Section 125, Cr PC. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai agreed to keep the informant and her daughter and he started keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw the case which she had instituted. When the informant did not withdraw the case, accused Ram Lakhan Rai instituted a case on her witnesses Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah for abducting the informant and her daughter to put pressure on her. On 26.7.1984 the informant went to her maike and she left her daughter Bhikhani Kumari (deceased) in the house of her husband. On 31.7.1984 one Kishori Kumhar informed her that her husband had either concealed her daughter somewhere or murdered her. The informant came to her husbands house and searched her daughter. On enquiry, she learnt from Bishuni Kumhar, Kishori Kumhar (PW 4) and Ram Chandra Sah (PW 14) that the accused Ram Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo Mandal were talking among themselves to remove Bhikhani so that the case which had been instituted for kidnapping may not fail. Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Lochan Rai had seen the accused taking away a child aged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on enquiry Ram Lakhan Rai had told that he was taking Bhikhani for curing her of snake bite and thereafter Bhikhani was not seen in the village. 3. The defence of the accused persons according to trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. It was argued by the learned lawyer for the appellants that there is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and they have made contradictory statements. In this case 15 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Bhikhari Jha and PW 2 Anil Kumar Karn are formal witnesses, who have proved Exts. 1, 2 and 3. PW 7 Anup Sah, PW 10 Parmeshwar Mishra, PW 14 Ramchandra Sah and PW 15 Ram Lochan Singh have been tendered. PW 9 Subdhi Devi and PW 11 Bharat Raut have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. There is no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and this case is based on circumstantial evidence. 1, 2 and 3. PW 7 Anup Sah, PW 10 Parmeshwar Mishra, PW 14 Ramchandra Sah and PW 15 Ram Lochan Singh have been tendered. PW 9 Subdhi Devi and PW 11 Bharat Raut have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. There is no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and this case is based on circumstantial evidence. PW 4 is Kishori Pandit. According to him Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram Lakhan Rai, Mahadeo Mandal and Ram Ekbal Rai were sitting in the baithka of Bindeshwar and Bindeshwar was telling Ram Lakhan that he had filed a case for kidnapping of Bhikhani and he had kept her in his house and he told Ram Lakhan to remove Bhikhani. He has stated that blood stained clothes were found in the land of Ram Lakhan Rai where Ganeshi was ploughing the field and police was informed and Daroga came and seized the blood stained clothes. PW 6 is Siya Devi, the informant of this case and she has supported the case as stated in her written report. She has stated that she had filed a case on her husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) for her maintenance and that of her daughter and he was ordered to pay Rs. 100/- per month but her husband did not pay the maintenance. According to her, she had gone to her naihar and her husband had gone there and promised to keep her and her daughter and he brought them. He asked her to withdraw the case, but she avoided and in the meantime he instituted a false case on Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah for abducting her and her daughter as they had deposed in her favour in maintenance case and when she protested to it and said that she was going to depose in the case that she had not been abducted, her husband also went to Sitamarhi and threatened her not to give statement, otherwise he would kill her. The informant went to her naihar from Sitamarhi and she had left her daughter Bhikhani in the house of her husband. After five days, Kishori Kumhar informed her that her daughter was not in her fathers house and she alongwith her brother Ras Bihari went to her husbands house and enquired about her daughter from her husband and sautan (Dauna Devi), but they did not tell anything. After five days, Kishori Kumhar informed her that her daughter was not in her fathers house and she alongwith her brother Ras Bihari went to her husbands house and enquired about her daughter from her husband and sautan (Dauna Devi), but they did not tell anything. Further according to her, Ram Prasad told her that when at 4 Oclock in the morning he was going to ease, he had seen Ram Lakhan Rai. Bindeshwar Thakur, Mahadeo Mandal and Ram Ekbal Rai taking away a cot and her sautan (Dauna Devi) was also going behind them and on enquiry Ram Lakhan had told that Bhikhani had snakebite and he was taking her for its cure. She has also said that when Ganesh Kumhar was ploughing the filed of her husband, dhoti of her husband and pant and orhani of her daughter with blood stains came out of the field and chaukidar informed the Daroga, who came and seized the clothes. She has also said that, her sutan (Dauna Devi) had confessed that she and Bindeshwar Thakur. Ram Lakhan Rai (appellant). Ram Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo Mandal had murdered Bhikhani and she had kept the dabia which had blood stains. She had also confessed that the dead body had been put under earth in the house after digging a ditch and Daroga had recovered the dead body. PW 13 Birendra Mohan Kumar is I.O. of the case. He has stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence and had gone to village Kanhawa and many people were digging the land of accused Ram Lakhan and trying to take out the body and five meters long dhoti which had blood stains and one orhani which had also blood stains were recovered and he seized it and prepared seizure list. Ext.6 is the seizure list. He (PW 13) has further stated that he reached the house of accused Ram Lakhan alongwith Muneshwar Sharma, Incharge Magistrate. Kanhawa Camp and Mukhiya and villagers. The house was locked from outside but the back door was open and he searched the house and he got the earth dug in the eastern room and foul smell came out of it and the dead body of Bhikhani Kumari was recovered. He prepared the inquest report before the incharge Magistrate and villagers and Mukhiya. which is Ext. 7. The house was locked from outside but the back door was open and he searched the house and he got the earth dug in the eastern room and foul smell came out of it and the dead body of Bhikhani Kumari was recovered. He prepared the inquest report before the incharge Magistrate and villagers and Mukhiya. which is Ext. 7. He had sent the dead body to Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital for post- mortem examination and he had also sent the clothes to Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, for examination after obtaining permission of the Court. He has stated that on the confessional statement of Dauna Devi, a Nepali khukhari dabia was recovered from a room of her house, which he had seized in presence of two witnesses and prepared the seizure list. The seizure List is Ext. 6/1. The facts and circumstances of the ease and the fact that the I.O. had recovered the dead body of the deceased girl from the house of the accused appellants and on the basis of the confessional statement of appellant No. 2. Dauna Devi, a Nepali khukhari dabai was recovered from her house and the fact that blood stained dhoti and blood stained orhani had been recovered from the field of the accused appellant Ram Lakhan Rai, conclusively proves that the deceased girl had been murdered by the accused appellants and her dead body was put under earth by them in their own house. Admittedly, the house belonged to the accused appellants. PW 12 is Dr. Jagdish Prasad Gupta. He has stated that he was a member of the Medical Board comprising of him. Dr. Miss. S.B.Prasad and Dr. S.P. Khaitan and all the members had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bhikhani Kumari and found the following injuries : (1) The whole neck alongwith trachea, vessels and cervical spine was cut at the level of 5th cervical spine and the head was hanging with skin on the back of the neck. (2) Liquified material was coming from nose and mouth. (3) High degree of putrifaction was observed all over the body. (4) On opening of the skull, whole brain matter was liquified. (5) On opening of the neck the trachea, vessels, spinal cord, vertebra all were found cut. (6) On opening of the thorax, the lungs were decomposed and heart chambers empty. (3) High degree of putrifaction was observed all over the body. (4) On opening of the skull, whole brain matter was liquified. (5) On opening of the neck the trachea, vessels, spinal cord, vertebra all were found cut. (6) On opening of the thorax, the lungs were decomposed and heart chambers empty. (7) On opening of the abdomen all the viscera (liver, spleen, stomach, kidney and intestine) were decomposed and could not be preserved. Uterus was of normal size and external genitalia were decomposed. Time elapsed since death over a fortnight. Nature-Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon may be dabia. It could not be ascertained whether the injury was ante-mortem or post-mortem, due to high degree of decomposition. Ext. 5 is post mortem report. 6 The evidence of the Doctor (PW 12) also supports me prosecution case. Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of the informant Siya Devi (PW 6), the I.O. (PW 13) and the Medical Officer PW 12) to disbelieve their evidence. 7. PW 5 is Dr. Ambika Prasad Singh. He has stated that he had asked Kishori to go to Kataila to inform the mother of Bhikhani. According to him, he heard hulla that blood stained dhoti of Ram Lakhan and blood stained cloth of Bhikhani were recovered from the land of Ram Lakhan and he went there and Daroga also came there and seized the clothes. PW 3 Ram Prasad Singh has stated that when he was returning after easing he had seen Ram Lakhan, Bindeshwar, Ram Ekbal and Madadeo taking away a girl of ten years on a cot and behind them was Dauna Devi, wife of Ram Lakhan and when he asked Ram Lakhan he said that she (Bhikhani) had snake-bite and he was taking her for its cure and thereafter Bhikhani was not seen in the village. 8. PW 8 is Bashishtha Narain Thakur. According to him the officer in- charge of the P.S. had seized blood stained dhoti and orhani before him from the land of Ram Lakhan and prepared seizure list. Ext. 4 is his signature on the seizure list. He has also stated that the dead body was recovered from the house of Ram Lakhan Rai before him and he had signed on the inquest report. Ext. 4/1 is his signature on inquest report. Ext. 4 is his signature on the seizure list. He has also stated that the dead body was recovered from the house of Ram Lakhan Rai before him and he had signed on the inquest report. Ext. 4/1 is his signature on inquest report. On the basis of statement of Dauna Devi the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a room of the house of accused Ram Lakhan Rai after digging the earth and, the dabia used in the murder of the deceased was also recovered. The post mortem report also shows that the dead body was highly decomposed. Admittedly, the house from where the dead body . of the deceased and dabia were recovered, is of accused appellants Ram Lakhan Rai and Dauna Devi. The circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused. The circumstances conclusively prove that both the accused appellants have committed the gruesome murder of the deceased. 9. There is no merit in this Criminal Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 10. Appellant Dauna Devi is on bail. Her bail is cancelled and she is ordered to surrender in the Court below forthwith to serve out the sentences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is also directed to take necessary steps in this regard. Sachchidanand Jha, J. 11 I agree.