Judgment : LAKSHMAN URAON, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16-7-2001, passed by Sri S. H. Kazmi, learned 4th Additional Sessions judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed against them under this Section. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Pardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the informant Hazi Abdul Hannan Khan (PW 12), recorded on 24-8-1991 at 2. 00 a. m. in the night at Malkera, Qr. No. 9 Block CZ, new Colony, Katras, by A. K. Pandey, A. S. I. , Katras Police Station, Camp Malkera. On the basis of the said Fard-beyan (Ext. 3) a case was registered and formal First Information report (Ext. 4) was drawn under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the appellants were charged under Section 302/ 34 and 201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, Later on, the case under the Arms Act was separately tried and concluded. Hence this charge was not dealt with in this Sessions Trial against the appellants. In course of pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 1 Noor Jahan Khatoon, wife of appellant No, 2 Abdul Azij Khan, died and, as such, this appeal against her stood abated. ( 3 ) THE informant Hazi Abdul Hannan khan (PW12) in his Fard-beyan (Ext. 3) has alleged that his daughter Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni was married with Ejaz Khan (appellant No. 3) son of Abdul Azij Khan appellant No. 2) three years prior to the alleged date of occurrence, who are residents of rajganj Azad Nagar. On 23-8-1991 at 11. 00 p. m. night appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan, his son appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan and wife appellant No. 1 Noor Jahan Khatoon (since dead) came to the house of the informant on a white ambassador car, carrying dead body of his daughter Sayeeda Khatoon alias chunni. They informed that Chunni died due to diarrhea. 00 p. m. night appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan, his son appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan and wife appellant No. 1 Noor Jahan Khatoon (since dead) came to the house of the informant on a white ambassador car, carrying dead body of his daughter Sayeeda Khatoon alias chunni. They informed that Chunni died due to diarrhea. The dead body was covered with cloth and was taken to the courtyard from the car. The car left the place, whose number could not be noticed by the informant. The inmates of the family of the informant started crying. On hearing the weeping and cry, the neighbours, namely, Md. Ibrahim, Mukhiya of Malkera Panchayat (PW 11), Rajesh Singh and others reached there and saw blood, on her left cheek and temporal region, having black spot of explosives. There was also blood on the left side of ear and arm, The informant suspected and when carefully saw the dead body, he found a hole on the back of the left ear, caused by fire arm. The appellants, when asked, could not give satisfactory explanation and fled away from his house. However, the villagers apprehended them. At that time appellant no. 4 Shahin Khan was not with them. They also did not explain as to where he had been at that time. A child aged about one and half year, of his daughter was also with them. The informant has further alleged that prior to her death, Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni had narrated the torture meted out to her by her mother-in-law (since dead), father -in-law (appellant No. 2), husband (appellant no. 3) and brother-in-law (appellant No. 4 ). They generally used to quarrel with her but she was sent to her in-laws house by the informant, after giving advice, fie stated that on 23-8-1991 the appellants caused murder of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni by injuring her with fire arm in their house and only to screen themselves from the legal punishment, they brought the dead body to his house. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses whereas the defence has also examined two witnesses. PW 1 Md. Aslam, PW 2 Khurshid Ahmad Khan, both neighbours, are the witnesses on the inquest report. P. W. 3 Md. Rehan Khan is the son of the informant and son-in-law of appellant No. 2 Md. Azij Khan PW 4 Md. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses whereas the defence has also examined two witnesses. PW 1 Md. Aslam, PW 2 Khurshid Ahmad Khan, both neighbours, are the witnesses on the inquest report. P. W. 3 Md. Rehan Khan is the son of the informant and son-in-law of appellant No. 2 Md. Azij Khan PW 4 Md. Muslim ansari, PW 5 Abdul Mannan Ansari, PW 6 ram Jas Singh, PW 7 Narayan Pandey, PW 8 Zahir Ahmad Khan are the neighbours and chance witnesses, who had gone to the house of the Informant on hearing cry and weeping. PW 9 Dr. D. K. Dhiraj has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni. PW 10 Dilip kumar Choudhary and PW 11 Md. Ibrahim (Mukhiya) also went to the house of the informant and saw the dead body of Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni, having sustained fire arm injury on her left temporal area, behind the left ear. PW 12 Abdul Hannan Khan is the informant whereas PW 13 Ram Jiwan prasad is the Investigating Officer of this case and PW 14 Surendra Prasad is the officer-in-Charge of Gumla Police Station DW 1 Tahir Min and DW 2 Appu Kumar chaurasia have deposed that Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunniwas was suffering from diarrhea. The Village Vaidya was treating her. She was taken to her parents house, who died. ( 5 ) THE learned 4th Additional Sessions judge, Dhanbad, considered the evidence of the witnesses, oral and documentary, and having found the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) ASSAILING the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, it has been submitted that deceased Sayeeda khatoon has died in her parents house but only to implicate these appellants, they were called to attend the cremation of Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni and when they reached in the house of the informant, all of them were caught and handed over to the police on false allegation. There is no eye witness of the alleged commission of murder of Sayeeda Khatoon and hence it is not clear as to who caused fire arm injury to her. There is no eye witness of the alleged commission of murder of Sayeeda Khatoon and hence it is not clear as to who caused fire arm injury to her. The motive to commit murder of Sayeeda khatoon has also not been proved by the prosecution. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. have totally denied their involvement in causing murder of Sayeeda Khatoon. Deceased sayeeda Khatoon generally used to reside in the house of her parents. During the time of the alleged occurrence also, she was residing there. It is submitted that the appellants, if intended to conceal the dead body to screen themselves from the legal punishment, there was ample opportunity to dispose of the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon, as it was night hours. But instead of doing so, they are alleged to have carried the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon after causing her murder to her parents house, which seems to be improbable, just against their natural conduct, The learned Court below has also relied the confessional statement made by appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khatoon before the police that Sayeeda Khatoon was done to death by firing on her temporal area in the kitchen room. This statement is inadmissible in evidence, which was ignored by the learned Court below. PW 1, PW 2, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 11, who are neighbours and villagers of the informant, have not stated that they noticed any ambassador car in which the dead body was taken to the house of the informant. They only assembled in the house of the informant, hearing the weeping and wailing of the members of the informants family and saw the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon in the courtyard. Only the interested witnesses i. e. P. W. 12, the informant Abdul Hannan Khan and his son P. W. 3 Rehan Khan have ported the prosecution case, which cannot be relied in absence of any corroboration by any other village independent witness. The learned Court below has disbelieved the evi-dence of D. W. 1 Tahir Mian and D. W. 2 Appu kumar Chaurasia, while believing the evi-dence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 12. The learned Court below has disbelieved the evi-dence of D. W. 1 Tahir Mian and D. W. 2 Appu kumar Chaurasia, while believing the evi-dence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 12. The fire arm produced by appellant No. 2 before the po-lice could not be produced in course of trial in the Court, On these grounds, it was sub-mitted that the appellants deserve acquit-tal, giving them benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) THE learned A. P. P. has submitted that admittedly there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. It was 11. 00 p. m. in the night. The plea of the appellants that sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni died due to diarrhea, who was taken to her parents house on ambassador car, is not in conso-nance with the Post Mortem Report. The fire arm injury was found on her person with blackening of the area, which shows that she was shot at from a close range distance in the kitchen of her in-laws house. The l. O. found the kitchen recently smeared with cow-dung. The fire arm was produced by appellant No. 2 Abdul Azil, who had also made confessional statement prior to pro-ducing the arms to the l. O. The production of fire arm i. e. means of assault, is admissi-ble in evidence under Sections 21 and 27 of the Evidence Act, coupled with Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These circumstantial evidence and the confession, made by appellant No. 2 corroborate the prosecution case that Sayeeda Khatoon alias chunni was being tortured by her in-laws, who are the appellants here in this Crimi-nal Appeal. Subsequently, she was done to death in their house and the dead body was taken to the house of the informant, only in order to screen themselves from legal pun-ishment to show that Sayeeda Khatoon used to live in her parents house, where she was done to death by her parents and others, which could not be substantiated. There was no occasion for theappellants to go to the house of the informant at 11. 00 p. m. in the night. Had Sayeeda Khatoon died her natu-ral death due to diarrhea in her matrimo-nial home, the informant and others might have been informed for cremation of the dead body. There was no occasion for theappellants to go to the house of the informant at 11. 00 p. m. in the night. Had Sayeeda Khatoon died her natu-ral death due to diarrhea in her matrimo-nial home, the informant and others might have been informed for cremation of the dead body. The circumstantial evidence is so linked, which leads to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant for causing mur-der of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni. The learned Court below having considered all these evidence carefully, has rightly con-supvicted these appellants and sentenced them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal code. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY the informants daughter sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni (deceased)was married with appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan, son of appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij, and vice versa the daughter of appellant No. 2 was married with Rehan Khan (P. W. 3), son of the informant. Sayeeda Khatoon alias chunni had given birth to a son, who was aged about one and half years at the time of the alleged occurrence. Although Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni used to narrate to her parents regarding torture meted out to her by the appellants but as there was Gholat marriage in between both the families, the informant tried to convince his daughter sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni and used to send her to her matrimonial home. The relationship in between both the families was such that there is no apprehension of any enmity or strained relationship. It hounds in my mind as to why the informant will falsely implicate his Samadhi and son-in-law when the daughter of Abdul Azij Khan is the daughter-in-law of the informant. Taking into consideration the family relationship and the evidence of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution and the defence, as also the evidence of Dr. D. K. Dhiraj (P. W. 9), I have to scrutinize the chain of circumstances as to whether there is the only hypothesis, unerringly leading towards the guilt of these appellants in causing murder of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni in furtherance of their common intention. ( 9 ) IN the present case P. W. 3 Rehan Khan son of the informant and son-in-law of appellant No. 2 (Abdul Azij Khan) and P. W. 12 abdul Hannan Khan (informant) were at home on 23-8-1991. ( 9 ) IN the present case P. W. 3 Rehan Khan son of the informant and son-in-law of appellant No. 2 (Abdul Azij Khan) and P. W. 12 abdul Hannan Khan (informant) were at home on 23-8-1991. They have deposed that deceased Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni was married with appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan in the year, 1988 and P. W. 3 was married with the sister of appellant No. 3 (daughter of appellant No. 2) in the same year i. e. 1988. Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni had a son, aged about one and half year, who was living in her matrimonial house. Whenever she used to come to her parents house, she used to narrate the informant (P. W. 13) and her brother (P. W. 3) as also others that their in-laws (appellants) used to assault her and forced her to work beyond her ability and whenever she used to go to her matrimonial house, after taking some cash from her parents house, the appellants used to snatch the same. Both the witnesses i. e. P. W. 3 and p. W. 12 saw appellant (Abdul Azij Khan) and appellant No. 3 (Ejaz Khan) as also appellant No. 1 (Noor Jehan Khatoon, since dead)on 23-8-1991 at 11. 00p. m. taking the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni along with her child, aged about one and half year. They took the dead body in the courtyard of the informant, covered with clothes. Appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 Informed that Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni died due to diarrhea. The informant uncovered and saw that there was blood and hole on the left temporal region on the backof the left ear and there was blackening mark with gun powder smell. On the cry and wailing of the members of the family, the neighbourers, who are village witnesses, namely, P. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 6, P. W. 7, P. W. 8, P. W. 10 and P. W. 11, amongst 30 to 40 villagers reached there. They also saw the dead body and fire arm injury on the left temporal region, behind the back of the left ear. They suspected the foul play. The villagers were likely to assault the appellants when they tried to flee away but were apprehended. They also saw the dead body and fire arm injury on the left temporal region, behind the back of the left ear. They suspected the foul play. The villagers were likely to assault the appellants when they tried to flee away but were apprehended. The informant restrained the villagers in assaulting the appellants and when the police came, appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 were handed over to the police, who were taken to the Police station, where appellant Abdul Azij Khan confessed his guilt and also took the police to his village home and brought out the means of assault i. e. pistol, which was concealed in a thatched roof of his house. The i. O. seized and prepared seizure list (Ext. 6)on which D. W. 2 Appu Kumar Chaurasia, prayag Mahto and appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij khan signed (Exts. 1/2, 1/4 and 1/5 respectively ). When asked by the villagers and the informant about appellant No. 4 Sahin khan, they could not explain his whereabouts. Evidence of the I. O. (P. W. 14) shows that appellant No. 4 Sahin Khan was absconding and he surrendered later on. Sahin khan in his statement under Section 313, cr. P. C. has deposed that prior to three years and also at the time of the alleged occurrence he was at Bombay. All village independent witnesses on hearing the cry and walling of the members of the informants family went there. P. W. 1 Md. Aslam and p. W. 2 Khurshid Ahmad Khan saw the blood oozing out from the left temporal area on the back of the left ear. After arrival of these witnesses, the I. O. arrived and prepared inquest report on which they signed (Exts. 1 and 1/1 respectively ). P. W. 3 and P. W. 12 have deposed that Md. Abdul Azij Khan (appellant No. 3} confessed his guilt before the villagers that he shot at Sayeed Khatoon in the kitchen, resulting her death. The other independent village witnesses i. e. P. W. 4 Md. Muslim Ansari, P. W. 5 Abdul Mannan ansari, P. W. 6 Ram Jas Singh, P. W. 7 narayan Pandey, P. W. 8 Jahir Ahmad Khan, p. W. 10 Dilip Kumar Chaurasia and P. W. 11 md. The other independent village witnesses i. e. P. W. 4 Md. Muslim Ansari, P. W. 5 Abdul Mannan ansari, P. W. 6 Ram Jas Singh, P. W. 7 narayan Pandey, P. W. 8 Jahir Ahmad Khan, p. W. 10 Dilip Kumar Chaurasia and P. W. 11 md. Ibrahim (Mukhlya) went to the house of the informant on hearing weeping and cry and saw the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni, who had sustained fire-arm injury on her left temporal region near the left ear. In their presence Md. Abdul Azij khan confessed his guilt that he caused fire arm injury resulting the death of Sayeeda khatoon. They took the flead body to her parents house on a car covering with chadar. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the extra-judicial confession, made by the appellant No. 2, is inadmissible. It was also argued that the means of assault i. e. pistol, alleged to have been recovered on the confessional statement of appellant No. 2, Abdul Azij Khan, not having been produced in course of trial in the Court below, it cannot be relied and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. On this point the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a case reported in, AIR 1995 SC 2345 : (1995 Cri LJ 3992) (Jackaram Singh v. State of Punjab ). With due respect, in that case the facts was that the assailants with muffled faces had fired shots on deceased and in trial the informant deposed contrary that he identified accused/appellant as assailant and that he alone fired all the three shots, which hit the deceased, the first informant having made material improvement in his statement and also exaggerated the prosecution case, his evidence cannot be said to be reliable. Further, the alleged recovery of crime weapon and cartridges on the basis of the alleged disclosure, statement of accused also was unreliable since according to the defence version the accused was arrested on much earlier date than that disclosed in the prosecution and subsequent to which one weapon was recoveredrendering its authenticity doubtful. Further, the alleged recovery of crime weapon and cartridges on the basis of the alleged disclosure, statement of accused also was unreliable since according to the defence version the accused was arrested on much earlier date than that disclosed in the prosecution and subsequent to which one weapon was recoveredrendering its authenticity doubtful. In the present case, the learned Court below did not consider the charge framed under Section 27 of the Arms act regarding recovery and production of fire arm along with cartridges found in it as a separate trial under Section 27 of the Arms act was held in which the appellants were acquitted. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when the appellants, particularly appellant No. 2, who confessed his guilt leading towards recovery of pistol and were separately charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act has been acquitted, then the entire prosecution case that he fired shot, resulting death of Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni cannot be-sustained. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the matter regarding recovery of fire-arm is not in dispute as the I. O. along with appellant No. 2 md. Azij Khan and other two witnesses namely, Appu Kumar Chaurasia and Prayag mahto had signed on it (Exts. 1/5. 1/3 and 1/4 respectively ). P. W. 14 Surendra Prasad on 23-8-1991 while posted at Katras. Police station having come to know that appellants have caused murder of Sayeeda Khatoon and her dead body was taken to her parents house, went there along with A. K. Pandey, who prepared the inquest report and also recorded the Fard-beyan of the informant and took him to the Police Station along with the appellants under arrest. Abdul Azij Khan confessed his guilt, which was also recorded and on his statement pistol was recovered for which seizure list (Ext. 7) was prepared on which appellant No. 2 Md. Abdul Azij Khan also signed along with the witnesses. P. W. 13 Ram Jiwan Prasad singh, I. O. of this case (P. W. 13) went to the house of the appellants, which has a tiled roof. He was Informed that after causing murder of Sayeeda Khatoon, the police took the dead body to her parents house Malkera. This witness went to Malkera and arrested the appellants. Inquest report was prepared after recording the Fardbeyan. He also prepared sketch map (Ext. 6) of the place of occurrence. He was Informed that after causing murder of Sayeeda Khatoon, the police took the dead body to her parents house Malkera. This witness went to Malkera and arrested the appellants. Inquest report was prepared after recording the Fardbeyan. He also prepared sketch map (Ext. 6) of the place of occurrence. The inquest report is Ext. 5 prepared in presence of the witnesses. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 Dr. O. K. Dhiraj on 24-8-1991 at 12. 30 p. m. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni, aged about 25 years and found one ante-mortem fire-arm injury (i) 1/5" x 1/2" x cavity deep with inverted margin and tattooing 10" x 10" x seen over left temporal area behind left ear root. The tattooing was extended on left side of forehead, face, left nostril, left upper scapula and upper arm on the back. On dissection contusion of the left parieto-temporal scalp and right posterior parietal scalp was noted. The fracture of left temporal bone under injury was inward direction. The metallic bullet (1. 2 inch, x 0. 2 inch) was recovered under right posterior parietal bone over meninges which caused laceration along the oblique course (left to right), to the brain. Intra cerebral and subdura) haemorrhage were seen. The recovered matelic bullet was handed over under seal to the, police. The death was caused due to shock as a result of the above fire-arm injury and the time elapsed since death was within 36 hours. Ext. 2 is the post-mortem report. ( 12 ) THE death of Sayeeda Khatoon alias chunni is not in dispute. The appellants carried the dead body on a car, which was seen by the villagers but the car soon after unloading the dead body of Sayeed Khatoon alias Chunni, left the place i. e. Malkera. Neither the informant nor any of the villagers marked the number of the Ambassador car. Appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan informed the informant that Sayeeda Khatoon died due to diarrhea. In the statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. appellant Abdul azij Khan has taken a plea that on 23-8-1991 his son-in-law (P. W. 3) came to his village rajganj and informed that Chunni died due to diarrhea in her parents house. To see her, the appellants went Malkera where they were asked to sit in a room, who were not shown the dead body. P. C. appellant Abdul azij Khan has taken a plea that on 23-8-1991 his son-in-law (P. W. 3) came to his village rajganj and informed that Chunni died due to diarrhea in her parents house. To see her, the appellants went Malkera where they were asked to sit in a room, who were not shown the dead body. After some time, the police reached there, apprehended them and after assaulting him, his signature was obtained on a paper at the Police Station. His statement shows that Sayeeda Khatoon died in her parents house due to diarrhea. On the other hand, the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses shows that she died due to diarrhea in her matrimonial house at Rajganj. On suspicion, when the informant and other villagerssaw that there was fire-arm injury on the left temporal area on the back side of left ear of sayeeda Khatoon, they suspected her murder and interrogated the appellants. The appellants thought that the injury on the back side of Sayeeda Khatoon, which was covered by Chadar, would not have been marked at night by the informant and other villagers and would have helped them in screening themselves from the legal punishment. But the luck did not favour them. Only to conceal themselves from the legal punishment after causing murder of Sayeeda khatoon at 11. 00 p. m. in the night they took the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon to her parents house i. e. Malkera. They had not informed regarding any disease i. e. diarrhea suffered by Sayeeda Khatoon. All of a sudden what was the occasion for the appellants to go to Village Malkera at night, which casts suspicion on them. The confessional statement of appellant No. 2 that he shot pistol, causing injury on the left temporal area of Sayeeda Khatoon, resulting her death, is supported by the medical evidence of Dr. D. K. Dhiraj (P. W. 9), who found tattooing and backening mark, which indicates that appellant No. 2 shot at a close range distance while his son (appellant No. 3) had caught hold of her in the kitchen. The admission of Abdul Azij Khan that his signature was obtained on a paper is disbelieved by the fact that recovery of the pistol with fired empty cartridge therein was made on his confessional statement, leading towards recovery, which he himself produced. It was seized and seizure list (Ext. The admission of Abdul Azij Khan that his signature was obtained on a paper is disbelieved by the fact that recovery of the pistol with fired empty cartridge therein was made on his confessional statement, leading towards recovery, which he himself produced. It was seized and seizure list (Ext. 7) was prepared by the I. O. which was signed by appellant no. 2 as also the defence witnesses, namely, prayag Mahto and Appu Kumar Chaurasia. The learned Court below has not discussed about the charge framed under Section 27 of the Arms Act, only because the original seizure list (Ext. 7) was returned back to the Magisterial Court where a separate trial under Section 27 of the Arms Act was held. Although that case ended in acquittal, only because the seizure list was not proved properly nor the informant was examined, but in a murder case even if arms is not recovered that does not discredit the prosecution case regarding cause of death due to fire arm. ( 13 ) THE learned A. P. P. in course of his argument has relied on a case, reported in air 1964 SC 1850 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 744) (Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh ). It was submitted that in the present case, the confessional statement made by appellant No. 2 abdul Azij Khan of course is inadmissible in evidence but certain facts regarding production of fired pistol with empty cartridge, loaded therein, was produced to the I. O. , which he had kept in the thatched roof of his house, is admissible in evidence. His denial that he had signed on a blank paper and the witnesses examined by him who are d. W. 1 and D. W. 2 also goes to prove that there was seizure of fired country made pistol with cartridge in presence of the witnesses, who have signed on it and a copy was handed over to the appellant. His denial that he had signed on a blank paper and the witnesses examined by him who are d. W. 1 and D. W. 2 also goes to prove that there was seizure of fired country made pistol with cartridge in presence of the witnesses, who have signed on it and a copy was handed over to the appellant. Sub-section (5) of Section 100 of the Code of criminal Procedure provides that The search shall be made in their presence and a list of all the things seized in the course of such search and all the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witness; but no person witnessing a search in this Section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it. " ( 14 ) IN the present case, the seizure list witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution rather they have been examined as defence witnesses to show that their signatures were obtained at the police station on a paper. One copy of the seizure list has been received by appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij khan in which there is signature of the other seizure list witnesses, which is enough to arrive at a conclusion that he produced the fired pistol, which was seized. The I. O. in course of his visit to the P. O. village prepared sketch map (Ext. 6) in presence of d. W. 1 Tahir Mian and D. W. 2 Appu Kumar chaurasia (Ext. 1/6 ). This also shows that the statement of the I. O. (P. W. 13) that he found the kitchen smeared with cow-dung supports the place of occurrence to be the kitchen of appellant No. 2. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case there is no eye-witness of the alleged mur der of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni, due to fire-arm injury. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case there is no eye-witness of the alleged mur der of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni, due to fire-arm injury. The prosecution case is based only on circumstantial evidence, which could not be linked to lead the only hypothesis towards the guilt of the appellants and has relied upon a case, reported in 1979 Cri LJ 1089 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1410 ) (State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu kavatage), wherein, Their Lordships have been pleased to hold that "before a Court can act on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must be completed and of a conclusive nature so as to be fully in consistent with the innocence of the accused and are not explainable on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Where there was sufficient interval between the death of the boy and the recovery of the body, the link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence does not appear to be fully completed. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. " In the case in hand, I find that the deceased Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni used to narrate re-garding torture, meted out to her at the hands of the appellants. Informant (P. W. 12)abdul Hanna Khan used to advice her and send her to her matrimonial house, only because the daughter of appellant No. 2 Is his daughter-in-law, and to maintain harmony in between the family, due to the golath marriage the informant did not disclose this fact in the vicinity. There is no evidence that Sayeeda Khatoon died due to diarrhea in her parents house i. e. Malkera. On the other hand, there is intact evidence, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, who are independent villager witnesses, who have seen the dead body brought on a car. They had not deposed that Sayeeda Khatoon was living in her parents house i. e. Malkera, who died due to diarrhea. On the other hand, all of them saw fire armed injury, which was the cause of death, as deposed by Dr. D. K. Dhiraj (P. W. 9 ). It is quite improbable that sayeeda Khatoon was murdered by her parents at Malkera. The plea taken in this regard by the appellants that Sayeeda Khatoon was done to death at her parents house is quite absurd. D. K. Dhiraj (P. W. 9 ). It is quite improbable that sayeeda Khatoon was murdered by her parents at Malkera. The plea taken in this regard by the appellants that Sayeeda Khatoon was done to death at her parents house is quite absurd. Although the prosecution has to stand on its own leg, which it has proved by connecting the circumstantial evidence that Sayeeda Khatoon was given in marriage to appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan in the year, 1988. She gave birth to a son, who was aged about one and half year at the time of the alleged occurrence. She was being tortured by her in-laws (these appellants) and whatever money she was given by the informant, that was used to be snatched away by the appellants. She was forced to do manual work beyond her capacity and even she was assaulted. They tried to eliminate her only to get rid of her andperform marriage of appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan with another girl. It is an admitted fact that the daughter of abdul Azij Khan (appellant No. 2) is peacefully living without any torture in her matrimonial house (house of the informant ). She is living peacefully with her husband P. W. 3 rehan Khan till today. Under such cordial relationship there was no reason why the informant and his son P. W. 3 Rehan Khan will falsely implicate the appellants, who are the Samadhi and son-in-law of the informant. There was no occasion to visit these appellants at night from Rajganj to Malkera. Had Sayeeda Khatoon died due to diarrhea, they should have informed the informant so that he might have been there to see his deceased daughter Sayeeda Khatoon at rajganj. But conspicuously the appellants brought the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon on a car at 11. 00 p. m. only to screen themselves from legal punishment. The doctor (P. W. 9), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Sayeeda Khatoon, found the injury, caused by fire-arm, having tattooing mark. He extracted the metallic bullet from her person and opined that it was the cause of death within 36 hours from the time of examination on 24-8-1991 at 12. 30 p. m. The alleged occurrence took place on 23-8-1991 and soon thereafter, she was taken to malkera from Rajganj (the P. O. village ). He extracted the metallic bullet from her person and opined that it was the cause of death within 36 hours from the time of examination on 24-8-1991 at 12. 30 p. m. The alleged occurrence took place on 23-8-1991 and soon thereafter, she was taken to malkera from Rajganj (the P. O. village ). On the next day i. e. 24-8-1991 the autopsy was done. The witnesses who went there hearing the cry and wailing, found the blood recently oozing out from the injury, which was a hole, caused due to firing by pistol. Thus, there is no interval to connect the circumstantial evidence to lead the only hypothesis that these appellants are the authors, who in furtherance of their common intention caused injury due to fire-arm, resulting death of Sayeeda Khatoon alias Chunni. The authority relied by the learned counsel for the appellants reported in AIR 2002 SC 3206 : (2002 Cri LJ 4676 ( (Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh) is of no help to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, there is no suspicion rather the evidence is that the appellants are the persons, who brought the dead body of Sayeeda khatoon from their village home i. e. Rajganj at night. They had taken plea that the cause of death to be diarrhea which could not be substantiated rather there is ample evidence to show that the cause of death was due to fire-arm injury. The circumstances have very well been proved forming the complete chain to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The means of assault i. e. pistol was recovered at the instance of appellant No. 2, which was seized and seizure list (Ext. 7) was prepared by the I. O -. which was signed by the witnesses, who have been examined as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 by the appellants themselves, which connected them with commission of the crime in furtherance of their common intention. On this point, the learned A. P. P. has relied upon a case, reported in (2002) 6 Supreme 10 (Motiram gaman Pawar v. State of Maharashtra ). The learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them thereunder. He has rightly considered the confessional statement of appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan, which was recorded by the police. The learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them thereunder. He has rightly considered the confessional statement of appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan, which was recorded by the police. The arm recovered was also tried separately by the magistrlal Court. When all the circumstances and the evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the prosecution, are considered together I find that the prosecution has connected the circumstantial evidence without any breakage connecting each other so closely which forms a complete chain to lead unerringly the guilt of these appellants in causing murder of Sayeeda khatoon alias Chunni. I, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction of sentence, passed against Appellant No. 2 Abdul azij Khan and Appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan. On the other hand, I find that the learned court below has erroneously relied the confessional statement of appellant No. 2 Abdul azij Khan, made before the police, which is inculpatory in which he has stated that his two sons i. e. appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan andappellant No. 4 Sahin Khan also were there. Against Sahin Khan there is no such evidence that he even participated in causing the murder of Sayeeda Khatoon rather in the confessional statement, he has been implicated as conspirator. At the time of the alleged occurrence, appellant No. 4 Sahin khan was not at his village home rajganj. Charge-sheet was submitted showing him absconder. He has taken the plea in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he was at Bombay since three years prior to the date of the alleged occurrence and after commission of the alleged occurrence, he returned back from Bombay and surrendered in the Court. The I. O. could not search him out. Appellant No. 1 (since dead), appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan and appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan on the Ambassador car along with the dead body of Sayeeda, khatoon had gone to Village Malkera. When, asked by the informant and other villagers, including P. W. 3, about Sahin Khan, appellant No. 4, they could not answer as to where he was at that time. When, asked by the informant and other villagers, including P. W. 3, about Sahin Khan, appellant No. 4, they could not answer as to where he was at that time. Thus, the learned Court below only relying on the confessional statement, made by appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij khan, has convicted appellant No. 4 Sahin khan under Section 302/34 of the Indian penal Code, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed against appellant No. 4 Sahin Khan, is liable to be set aside, giving benefit of doubt to him. ( 16 ) IN the result, I find that the prosecution has well proved its case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant No. 2 Abdul Azij Khan and his son appellant No. 3 Ejaz Khan. As such, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed against them by the learned court below, is hereby affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed, so far these two appellants are concerned. Appellant No. 4, sahin Khan, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds, furnished in this case, as he is acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt, and the appeal filed on his behalf is hereby allowed. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .