Judgment I.P.Singh and B.N.P.Singh JJ. 1. The sole appellant, Bachi Devi, has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) the brother of the deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh was married with Sarswati Devi and the couple had three minor sons and one minor daughter. Further case of the prosecution is that deceased had married another girl named Bachi Devi in court. It has been further alleged that the appellant, Bachi Devi, was living on second floor in the house of one Baijnath Singh-situated at Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1 and rent of which was being paid by the deceased. It has been further alleged that the deceased had purchased a house in the name of appellant, Bachi Devi, at Hajipur but soon after purchase of this house at Hajipur differences cropped up between the deceased and the appellant. It has been further alleged that the conduct of appellant Bachi Devi was becoming questionable for which she was regularly advised to improve her conduct but she did not pay heed to it. Thereafter she filed a case against the deceased and started conspiracy against the deceased. Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased used to visit the house of the appellant Bachi Devi at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 and also used to stay there some time in the night also. It has been further alleged that on 18.10.1991 appellant, Bachi Devi, arrived at the house of the deceased situated at Nala Road, Kadam Kuan and after talking with the deceased she went away. On 19.10.1991 when the deceased did not return to his residence at Nala Road till 10 A.M. Sarswati Devi, the first wife of deceased sent her son Pintu Kumar (P.W. 4) at Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1 to know the where-about of the deceased. Thereafter Pintu Kumar (P.W. 4) immediately returned to Nala Road and informed the informant that the grill of the house of Bachi Devi, the accused, was locked and some foul smell was coming. It has been further alleged that on getting this information, the informant alongwith Pintu Kumar went to the residence of Bachi Devi at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 and pushed Pintu by widening the grill inside the room. It has been further alleged that on getting this information, the informant alongwith Pintu Kumar went to the residence of Bachi Devi at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 and pushed Pintu by widening the grill inside the room. The main door of the room was opened and when Pintu entered into that room he found his father, Deo Bahadur Singh lying dead in pool of blood. He shouted from there that his father was murdered. It has been further alleged that the informant, however, took out Pintu Kumar through the grill and immediately telephoned the police who arrived and broke open the lock. The police entered inside the house and found that Deo Bahadur Singh was dead and his neck was cut partially. Both the legs were tied by electric wire and a Lungi around his neck was also found. It has been further alleged that the informant claimed that his brother Deo Bahadur Singh was murdered by Bachi Devi, the accused in order to grab that house. The fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the informant, Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) was recorded and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted. Thereafter cognizance was taken and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether nine witnesses. P.W. 1 is Jitendra Kumar Jain. P.W. 2 is Arvind Kumar Diwakar. P.W. 3 is Pashupati Nath Tripathi. P.W. 4, Pintu Kumar, is the son of the deceased. P.W. 5, Lal Bahadur Singh, is the informant. P.W. 6 is Dr. Suniti Kumar. P.W. 7 is Kedar Rai, the I.O. of this case. P.W. 8 is Ram Ran Vijay Singh and P.W. 9 is Santosh Kumar Gupta, another police officer. 5. P.W. 1, Jitendra Kumar Jain has stated that the deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh, was his friend and accused Bachi Devi was his second wife. He has further stated that deceased Deo Bahadur Singh was also second husband of the appellant Bachi Devi. According to him the appellant, Bachi Devi and (sic) used to reside at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 on rent. The deceased Deo Bahadur Singh was murdered in that very house. He has further stated that deceased Deo Bahadur Singh was also second husband of the appellant Bachi Devi. According to him the appellant, Bachi Devi and (sic) used to reside at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 on rent. The deceased Deo Bahadur Singh was murdered in that very house. He has further stated that due to property of Hajipur there was differences between the deceased and the appellant and she had also filed some cases against the deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh. According to him the house of deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh, was situated at Nala Road, Kadamkuan where he has got a furniture shop also. He has further stated that he had seen the dead body of Deo Bahadur Singh in the house occupied by Bachi Devi on rent. 6. P.W. 2, Arvind Kumar Diwakar, has stated that deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh, was known to him and in the evening of 18.10.1991 at about 7 P.M. he had gone to the house of the deceased to realise his dues money, where he came to know that deceased Deo Bahadur Singh had gone to Rajendra Nagar alongwith Bachi Devi. He has further stated that in the same night at about 8 P.M. he went to that house situated at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 and there he found Bachi Devi, Deo Bahadur Singh and some unknown persons in that house. He has further stated that on demand Deo Bahadur Singh paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and he left that place. He has further stated that on the next day he came to know that Deo Bahadur Singh was murdered in that very house and on coming to know about the murder of Deo Bahadur Singh he went to the place of occurrence and gave his statement before the police. 7. According to P.W. 3 Deo Bahadur Singh was known to him, and he was murdered on 19.10.1991. He has further stated that in the morning of 19.10.1991 when returning after morning walk near water tower in ward no. 1 (near the place of occurrence) he found 2-4 persons coming with a lady who had attachi in her hand. He has further stated that he identified that lady and he disclosed that she was appellant, Bachi Devi. 8. He has further stated that in the morning of 19.10.1991 when returning after morning walk near water tower in ward no. 1 (near the place of occurrence) he found 2-4 persons coming with a lady who had attachi in her hand. He has further stated that he identified that lady and he disclosed that she was appellant, Bachi Devi. 8. P.W. 4, Pintu Kumar, the son of the deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh has stated that at about 6 P.M. on 18.10.1991 Bachi Devi had arrived at his house at Nala Road and she requested his father, the deceased to accompany her to her residence upon which the deceased went with appellant Bachi Devi at her residence situated at Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1. He has further stated that on the next day at about 8.30 A.M. he went to the residence of Bachi Devi where he found the grill of the house locked. He returned from there and informed his uncle, Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5). Thereafter he alongwith his uncle went to the residence of Bachi Devi and after pushing the grill he went inside the house. He has further stated that he entered inside the house and found his father lying dead in a pool of blood. The police arrived there and recorded his statement. 9. P.W. 5, Lal Bahadur Singh, the informant has stated that deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh, was his brother. According to him he was married with one Sarswati Devi and from Sarswati Devi he had three minor sons and one minor daughter. He has further stated that Deo Bahadur Singh used to reside at Nala Road residence and used to visit and stay at the house of Bachi Devi, the appellant, situated at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 in the house of Baijnath Singh. He has further stated that on 18.10.1991 at about 6 P.M. in the evening Bachi Devi arrived at his residence and took away the deceased Deo Bahadur Singh with her. He has further stated that on the next day till 10 A.M. when the deceased did not return, Sarswati Devi sent her son Pintu. He has further stated that he and Pintu went there and they found the grill of the house locked. He has further stated that on the next day till 10 A.M. when the deceased did not return, Sarswati Devi sent her son Pintu. He has further stated that he and Pintu went there and they found the grill of the house locked. However, they made a small space through which Pintu went inside the room and immediately came out from the room weeping and crying saying that his father was lying dead in pool of blood. He has further stated that thereafter he immediately informed the police on telephone. The police arrived there and broke open the lock of the grill and the informant and police entered into the room and found the deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh lying dead and his neck was cut. He gave his statement before the police and put his signature on it. 10. P.W. 6 is Dr. Suniti Kumar who has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Deo Bahadur Singh and found the following ante-mortem injuries:- (i) Incised wound 6" x 3" over left side of the neck from mid-line of chest anteriorly neck to neck posteriorly. All vita! structure of the neck including thyroid were cut at different levels. Falling of the wounds were anteriorly over neck and chest. (ii) Incised wound 5" x 1" x muscle deep, over right side of the neck one inch from the midline anteriorly. The injury was curved downward and tailing was anteriorly. (iii) Abrasion of 8" x V2" from elbow joint to 3" above wrist joint posterior aspect of right fore-arm. (iv) Abrasion of the size 1" x ¼" over left fore-arm posteriorly below elbow joint. (v) On dissection of the body all the viscera were found pale. Heart was empty. Stomach can fai (sic) digested meal. Bladder was empty. (vi) Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours appx. (vii) Cause of death haemorrhage and shock. (viii) The above injuries were sufficient in natural course to cause death. (ix) Weapon used for injury nos. 1 and 2 is sharp cutting weapon such as sickle which is used to cut vegetable, for injury nos. 3 and 4 hard blunt object. 11. P.W. 9, Santosh Kumar Gupta, I.O. of this case has stated that on 19.10.1991 he was posted as Officer Incharge of Kadam Kuan police station. (ix) Weapon used for injury nos. 1 and 2 is sharp cutting weapon such as sickle which is used to cut vegetable, for injury nos. 3 and 4 hard blunt object. 11. P.W. 9, Santosh Kumar Gupta, I.O. of this case has stated that on 19.10.1991 he was posted as Officer Incharge of Kadam Kuan police station. According to him on that day at 11.15 A.M. he received an information through telephone that at Rajendra Nagar Road no. 1 in front of electricity office one Deo Bahadur Singh was murdered. On this information he entered a Sanha and proceeded for Rajendra Nagar alongwith Kedar Rai (P.W. 7). He arrived on the second floor of the house of Baijnath Singh and found the grill locked by chain. He cut the chain and went inside the room. He found the dead body of Deo Bahadur Singh lying in a pool of blood and at that very place Fardbeyan of Lal Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) was recorded. Thereafter he prepared an inquest report and inspected the place of occurrence. 12. The defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W. 1, Shatrughan Kumar, is a formal witness and D.W. 2 is Ram Ashrey Singh. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The prosecution witnesses RWs. 2 and 3 are chance witnesses and their evidence can not be relied upon. It has been further submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence does not establish the offence. The medical evidence is not consistent with the evidence of other witnesses. There was no motive to commit the crime as the appellant Bachi Devi had left the Rajendra Nagar house permanently in January, 1991 and was living in her own house at Hajipur. The landlord was not examined nor any other persons of that locality has come to support that the house at the relevant time was in occupation of the appellant, Bachi Devi or deceased Deo Bahadur Singh. The Doctor (P.W. 6) found that there was no decomposition of the body as such how P.W. 4, Pintu Kumar, son of the deceased has got foul smell coming out from the door. The Doctor (P.W. 6) found that there was no decomposition of the body as such how P.W. 4, Pintu Kumar, son of the deceased has got foul smell coming out from the door. It has been further submitted that in the F.I.R. it has been stated that the appellant, Bachi Devi, went alone after coming to Nala Road house as such the statement that she came to the house at Rajendra Nagar with deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh, is wrong. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has submitted that the prosecution by examining P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 has completed the chain to establish the guilt of the appellant and there is no alternative hypothesis to prove the possibility of involvement of any other person. 15. Learned counsel for the State has also adopted the submission of the learned counsel for the informant. 16. This case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is not always necessary that to prove the crime, there must be eye witnesses. In all cases there may not be direct ocular evidence before the court to state that he has seen the alleged crime. Specially in cases of pre-planned crime, precaution is taken that no one should witness the act. in such cases court has to rely on circumstantial evidence. However, the conviction solely based on circumstantial evidence can only be if the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established without any if and but. The facts so established would be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature. They should exclude any other possible hypothesis as well. There must be a chain of evidence so that to complete the chain and not to leave any reasonable ground of conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all possibility the act must have been done by the accused. In this case as already discussed according to the evidence of Pintu Kumar (P.W. 4) the son of the deceased who has stated that the appellant had come to his house in the evening at Nala Road on 18.10.1991 and she (appellant) asked his father to accompany her to the residence at Rajendra Nagar. In this case as already discussed according to the evidence of Pintu Kumar (P.W. 4) the son of the deceased who has stated that the appellant had come to his house in the evening at Nala Road on 18.10.1991 and she (appellant) asked his father to accompany her to the residence at Rajendra Nagar. His father and appellant went to the residence of Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1, P.W. 2 has stated that on 18.10.1991 in the evening he went to Nala Road residence of the deceased to meet him to ask for return of his money and he came to know that Deo Bahadur Singh, deceased had gone to his residence at Rajendra Nagar Road No.1. Accordingly, he reached residence at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 at about 8 P.M. and he saw Deo Bahadur Singh, Bachi Devi and three others sitting in that Flat and on his demand the deceased Deo Bahadur Singh gave him Rs. 2,000/- and he returned back. He has further stated that next day he came to know that Deo Bahadur Singh was murdered. P.W. 3 has stated that in the morning at 5 A.M. on 19.10.1991 when he was on his morning walk he saw 2/4 persons with appellant, Bachi Devi near water tank in Road No. 1 and she was holding a attache case in her hand. From the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 9 it is established that the dead body of Deo Bahadur Singh was found from the Flat at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1. The Doctor who held post mortem examination found that the deceased was killed in the night of 18.10.1991. He also found that the deceased died due to the injury inflicted on him. He also found that both legs of the deceased were tied with electric wire which was also twisted on his neck. As such offence was committed with the help of some persons. The chain of sequence as established indicated that the appellant alongwith her associates were instrumental in the murder of Deo Bahadur Singh. Though defence by calling P.Ws. 2 and 3 as improbable and chance witnesses had tried to dilute their evidentiary value but RWs. 2 and 3 are not related to the deceased. They have separate business. The chain of sequence as established indicated that the appellant alongwith her associates were instrumental in the murder of Deo Bahadur Singh. Though defence by calling P.Ws. 2 and 3 as improbable and chance witnesses had tried to dilute their evidentiary value but RWs. 2 and 3 are not related to the deceased. They have separate business. They have not been just created as witnesses by the prosecution rather theyafter hearing about the occurrence voluntarily came to the residence at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 and their statement was recorded by the police soon there after. As such they are competent and natural witnesses. 16A. P.W. 2 being a teacher might have invested his money in the business with the deceased and there is nothing improbable if he went to collect his money which was due with the deceased at Rajendra Nagar residence. P.W. 3 was having his shop by the side of the shop of the deceased. As such he was knowing the appellant from before. Thus it was natural that if he saw the appellant alongwith others in the morning at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 and he gave such statement before the police. 16B. For submission of the learned counsel that how P.W. 4, Pintu Kumar found foul smells coming out from the room of the house in which the dead body of his father was lying when he went there to enquire about him, there may be other reasons of foul smell such as left over food kept in Kitchen and from also pool of blood which had fallen on the ground from the wound of the deceased. As far non-examination of Baijnath Prasad, the landlord is concerned, he could have only disclosed who was paying rent for the Flat at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1. But the prosecution has established by oral evidence as well as documentary evidence that the appellant was living in the house at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1. She has herself filed Vakalatnama in court from which it is clear that till June, 1991 she has given her address at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1. As such it was immaterial for the prosecution to prove who was paying rent of the Flat and non-examination of the land-lord has not prejudiced the case of the prosecution. 17. She has herself filed Vakalatnama in court from which it is clear that till June, 1991 she has given her address at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1. As such it was immaterial for the prosecution to prove who was paying rent of the Flat and non-examination of the land-lord has not prejudiced the case of the prosecution. 17. As far as motive is concerned the court below has discussed this issue in detail in paragraph 14 of the judgment. It appears from the record that dispute between the deceased and appellant started on the question of transferring the house at Hajipur which was purchased in the name of the appellant from the vendor Kusum in the year 1986 on a consideration amount of Rs. 8,000/- only. Though the appellant claims that she got it purchased from the money she received from the University after death of her husband but no papers in proof thereof has been produced. On the other hand, the informant (P.W. 5) has stated that his brother, Deo Bahadur Singh, has purchased that house in the name of appellant, Bachi Devi. P.W. 4 has also stated that his father was knowing the appellant from 1984 and the appellant and his father was having relation in between them. The differences arose for transferring of house at Hajipur which was in the name of the deceased and on this issue relationship between them became bitter and they came at litigating term. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the deceased was threatening her to kill. The case was also lodged under sections 491, 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the deceased by the appellant. There was also proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between them. Since he was under the threat from the deceased and was also being pressed for transferring the house at Hajipur only property she had, there was no alternative left to her except to get rid of the appellant. As such the prosecution orally as well as with document has proved the motive of the case. The submission that Flat at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 was being used as brothel in which girls were brought for-flesh business and some one might have killed the deceased and in this connection a reference was also made to the case filed by Most. The submission that Flat at Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1 was being used as brothel in which girls were brought for-flesh business and some one might have killed the deceased and in this connection a reference was also made to the case filed by Most. Sudama Devi, but in that case it was alleged that her daughter Sangita has been kidnapped from her house at Lohanipur by the appellant and not the deceased. It was also alleged that the girl might be used for prostitution or might be sold to another person for immoral act which is evidenced from Ext. 12. From this also it appears that the deceased had no hand in such unsocial act rather by Ext. 13, submitted in a proceeding by police under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it has been reported that Bachi Devi was not keeping good character and was not faithful to the deceased, Deo Bahadur Singh, though her all expenses were met by the deceased. This also shows that it was not the deceased who was involved in such activities, if at all. Thus possibility that he might have been killed by some one else is ruled out, specially when there is consistent evidence of the witnesses and she was last seen with the deceased at residence of Rajendra Nagar Road No. 1. 18. That the learned court below on the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient and consistent chain of evidence leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant alone and convicted the appellant. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. 19. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below is hereby confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.