Honble JAIN, J.–These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2002 passed by Additional Session Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Jaipur City, Jaipur in session case No. 8/2002 whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants Brij Bihari and Smt. Primila for the offence under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, under Section 120(B) IPC to undergo the imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also under Section 201 I.P.C. to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The D.B. Criminal appeal No. 6/2003 has been filed on behalf of the accused-appellants Brij Bihari and Smt. Primila through counsel whereas D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1653/2003 has been filed through jail by accused Brij Bihari. (2). The brief facts of the case are that one Ramadhar Singh lodged a first information report on 30.7.2000 at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that the in-laws of his son Shreeniwas are at Jaipur. Shreeniwas had gone to Jaipur for earning his livelihood. He received last letter dated 7.4.2000 written by Shreeniwas. Thereafter, his wife Smt. Primila and his sons Sunil and Kamlesh came to village in the month of May. He asked them about Shreeniwas. Smt. Primila told that due to rush of work he could not come. After sometime Smt. Primila, went at Jaipur. When he did not receive any information about Shreeniwas, he sent his son-in-law Vijay Singh at Jaipur but Shreeniwas was not found. It was also alleged that on 13.4.2000 a report of missing of Shreeniwas was lodged by Smt. Primila at the instance of Vijay Singh. When they did not hear about Shreeniwas then he, Ramneti, Vijay Singh and Smt. Manki came at Jaipur. Smt. Primila did not give satisfactory reply. Then he met with Sunil- son of Shreeniwas who told him that his mother, maternal uncle Rajesh and Brij Bihari have killed his father i.e. Shreeniwas. It was further stated by Sunil that their mother thereafter went Alwar along with Brij Bihari. They were also accompanied with their mother. Smt. Primila did not give satisfactory reply. Then he met with Sunil- son of Shreeniwas who told him that his mother, maternal uncle Rajesh and Brij Bihari have killed his father i.e. Shreeniwas. It was further stated by Sunil that their mother thereafter went Alwar along with Brij Bihari. They were also accompanied with their mother. It was also alleged that his son Shreeniwas is missing since last more than two months and Smt. Primila is not giving satisfactory reply. Therefore, he believes that his son has been murdered by Smt. Primila, Rajesh and Brij Bihari. On the basis of this information, a case under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation the police prepared a site plan and took the sample of blood and bones of Shreeniwas which was sent for examination. During investigation, it came on record that a skeleton of a man was recovered on 6.5.2000 and on the same, a case No. 27/2000 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, other parts of the body were searched and recovered on 8.5.2000. The postmortem was conducted. During investigation the Investigating Agency came in knowledge that Shreeniwas was living in the house situated at Narendra Nagar along with his wife Smt. Primila and two sons Sunil and Kamlesh. The accused Brij Bihari was tenant in the house belonging to his father. There was illicit relationship in between Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari and due to it a quarrel and beating took place in between Brij Bihari and Shreeniwas. The Investigating Agency also collected evidence that on 14.4.2000 the landlord of the deceased Shreeniwas was out of station and on that day at about 8 pm Shreeniwas came in his house. Thereafter, Rajesh and Brij Bihari reached at about 9 pm and met Primila. All the three went in the underground of the house and killed Shreeniwas by way of strangulation. They put the dead body of the deceased in the Gudari and took the same alongwith other articles of the house with them and vacated the house. They put the dead body in the vacant plot nearby their house. (3). After completion of investigation the police filed a challan against accused persons Brij Bihari, Rakesh Kumar, Smt. Primila and Smt. Prabhawate. They put the dead body in the vacant plot nearby their house. (3). After completion of investigation the police filed a challan against accused persons Brij Bihari, Rakesh Kumar, Smt. Primila and Smt. Prabhawate. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur and it was transferred for disposal to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Trial Court framed charges against accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar, Brij Bihari, Smt. Primila for the offence under Sections 302, 302/120-B and 201 I.P.C. and against accused Smt. Prabhawate under Section 201 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. (4). In support of the case, prosecution examined as many as 39 witness and produced documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P63. Thereafter the statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations and stated that they have falsely been implicated in the matter. (5). Learned Trial Court, after hearing all the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 26.10.2002 while acquitting the co- accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar and Prabhawate, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. (6). Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that there is no eye-witness in the present case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He submits that there is no link evidence also so as to prove offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Trial Court relied upon the statement of PW3 Sunil-son of deceased Shreeniwas who is only ten years of age, therefore, he was not in a position to understand the things correctly and as such his statement should be discarded. He further argued that even PW3 Sunil does not state in his statement that his mother Smt. Primila gave beating to his father. PW3 has admitted in cross-examination that he was taught by Public Prosecutor before giving statement. He has cited number of judgments of circumstantial evidence and has tried to convince us that in the present case there is no link evidence so as to connect the accused with the crime. PW3 has admitted in cross-examination that he was taught by Public Prosecutor before giving statement. He has cited number of judgments of circumstantial evidence and has tried to convince us that in the present case there is no link evidence so as to connect the accused with the crime. He relied upon Ram Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another (1), Umrao Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2), Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (3), Manoj vs. State of Rajasthan (4), Bakshish Singh vs. State of Punjab (5), Rahman vs. The State of U.P. (6), Hukam Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (7), Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra (8), Ramesh Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (9), Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (10), Harendra Narain Singh etc. vs. State of Bihar (11), State of Haryana vs. Ved Prakash (12), Hargovandas Devrajbhai Patel and Others vs. State of Gujarat (13) and Mujeeb & Another vs. State of Kerala (14). (7). Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that conviction on the basis of child eye-witness is not safe. He has referred cases of Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (15), Banwari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (16), Chhagan Deme vs. The State of Gujarat (17), Ratan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (18), State of M.P. vs. Gujra and Others (19), The State of Bihar vs. Kapil Singh (20), Caetano Piedade Fernandes and Another vs. Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu, Panaji Goa (21) and Bahadul vs. State of Orissa (22). (8). Learned counsel also submitted that the conviction under section 201 I.P.C. is also bad in law in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has relied upon the judgment given in the case of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (23), and in the case of Smt. Lata and Another vs. State of Goa (24). (9). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court. He submits that there are strong circumstances against the accused appellants to connect them with the crime. (9). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court. He submits that there are strong circumstances against the accused appellants to connect them with the crime. He also submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellants on the basis of testimony of the child witness PW3 Sunil. (10). We have heard the arguments from both the sides and examined the entire record of the case. PW 3 Sunil is a child witness aged about ten years. Before recording his statement, learned Trial Court put relevant questions to PW3 to satisfy itself as to whether the witness is in a position to give proper answer or not. The questions and the answers were recorded and thereafter the learned Trial Court recorded its satisfaction that witness is in a position to give proper answer and only thereafter his statement was recorded. PW3 stated that his father is Shreeniwas and mother is Primila. Earlier they were living in village Chandu Dehra. Thereafter they shifted at Jaipur and started living in a room. His father took a room on rent wherein he, his father and mother and his brother were living. His father was working in a factory. PW3 states that his father asked his mother as to why Brij Bihari comes to their house. He further states that he, his brothers, their mother Primila and accused Brij Bihari had gone to Alwar. They were not accompanied with their father because their father had already been died. He stated that his father was beaten by his maternal uncle, Brij Bihari and maternal father. He also states that Brij Bihari used to kiss his mother. In the cross-examination, PW3 stated that when they were at Alwar the accused Brij Bihari used to sleep with his mother Primila and he and his brothers were sleeping together. He states that they went Alwar after death of their father. (11). PW4 Ramadhar Singh is father of the deceased Shreeniwas. He has stated that when Brij Bihari, Primila and his son Sunil came at village Chandu Dehra Kabhaar, he asked Smt. Primila as to why Shreeniwas has not come. He states that they went Alwar after death of their father. (11). PW4 Ramadhar Singh is father of the deceased Shreeniwas. He has stated that when Brij Bihari, Primila and his son Sunil came at village Chandu Dehra Kabhaar, he asked Smt. Primila as to why Shreeniwas has not come. He also asked Brij Bihari as to why Shreeniwas has not come but no satisfactory reply was given. When they were not satisfied with the explanation and reply of Brij Bihari and Smt. Primila, then he sent Vijay Singh at Jaipur and when he also failed to search Shreeniwas then he along with his wife, Vijay Singh and master Ramneti Singh came at Jaipur and lodged the report. (12). PW8 Smt. Nausar, who was landlord of deceased Shreeniwas, stated that accused Brij Bihari and Rajesh used to come frequently to meet Smt. Premila in the house. PW9 Babu Lal has stated that he was living near the house of Rameshwar in Narendra Nagar. He stated that Smt. Primila accused was living in the house of Rameshwara. He also stated that Brij Bihari and Rajesh both used to come frequently to meet Smt. Primila. PW36 Sunil Kumar S.H.O. stated that on 30.7.2000 he was posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Mahesh Nagar. He received one written report from Ramadhar Singh Exhibit-P-8. He registered FIR Exhibit-P-9, he prepared site plan Exhibit-P-11. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW36 also states that on 15.9.2000 the accused Brij Bihari and Smt. Primila voluntarily gave an information Exhibit-P51 to Exhibit-P-52 about the place of occurrence where Shreeniwas was killed by them. On 16.9.2000 the accused Brij Bihari gave an information about Riksha Trolly wherein dead body of Shreeniwas was shifted. (13). The learned Trial Court, in para 59, of its judgment has recorded 13 circumstances or link evidence for connecting the accused persons with the crime. The deceased Shreeniwas came Jaipur from village and no letter was written by him after 7th April to his father and it was a last letter. Shreeniwas had gone to his duty in factory last time on 14.4.2000. On 6th May and 8.05.2000 the skeleton of a man was found which was recovered by police in the same area wherein Smt. Primila and Shreeniwas were residing in rented room. The accused Primlia vacated the rented house all of sudden. Shreeniwas had gone to his duty in factory last time on 14.4.2000. On 6th May and 8.05.2000 the skeleton of a man was found which was recovered by police in the same area wherein Smt. Primila and Shreeniwas were residing in rented room. The accused Primlia vacated the rented house all of sudden. The accused Brij Bihari had gone to PW37 Upeen Baba for Riksha Trolly on the day of incident for vacating the rented house. There were illicit relationship in between Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari and in spite of resistance of Shreeniwas, they both used to meet each other. After 14.4.2000 accused Primila went at Alwar with Brij Bihari. The children were also accompanied with them. They all stayed there for long time. Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari used to sleep together in Alwar. Brij Bihari used to go on duty in the factory at Alwar and Smt. Primila used to live with children at the house. Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari came back at Jaipur from Alwar and thereafter Smt. Primila went at his fathers house at Bihar and Brij Bihari also went along with Smt. Primila. Smt. Primila gave a false explanation to PW4 that Shreeniwas did not come due to rash of work whereas after 14.4.2000 Shriniwas did not attend his duty in the factory. She also gave false statement that Shreeniwas is alive. She gave false address and telephone number of Shreeniwas. PW5 Vijay Kumar Singh went at Jaipur to meet Shreeniwas on the above address given by Smt. Primalia but Shreeniwas was not found there. He also telephoned Shreeniwas on the telephone numbers given by Smt. Primila but they could not talk on the said number. Smt. Primila did not lodge report immediately in second week of April when Shreeniwas was missing. She has not given any explanation of delay of two and half months for not registering the case. She lodged report of missing of Shreeniwas only when PW5 Vijay Kumar Singh insisted for it. She stated nothing about efforts made by her for searching Shreeniwas. Smt. Primila did not give any explanation as to why she vacated the house in night in absence of landlord. She gave an affidavit dated 13th April duly attested by PW26 Chand Mal Jain Notary Public wherein she stated that Shreeniwas went to attend duty in April, 2000. She stated nothing about efforts made by her for searching Shreeniwas. Smt. Primila did not give any explanation as to why she vacated the house in night in absence of landlord. She gave an affidavit dated 13th April duly attested by PW26 Chand Mal Jain Notary Public wherein she stated that Shreeniwas went to attend duty in April, 2000. She did not disclose any date or day of missing of Shreeniwas in spite of fact that she was a literate lady. She only stated in the affidavit that she wants to report about her missing husband. (14). The above circumstances make it clear that there was a complete chain of circumstances since 14.4.2000 continuously and accused were having knowledge that Shreeniwas had not gone to attend duty after 14.04.Smt. Primila vacated the house in the night in absence of the landlord. Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari went at Alwar where they lived together as husband and wife. There is sufficient evidence available on record to prove the aforesaid circumstances. PW3 Sunil is a child witness but he understands the things very well. The questions were put to him before recording the statement by the Trial Court and he gave complete answers to all the questions. PW3 has stated that Brij bihari used to kiss his mother. He further states that his mother, Brij Bihari and his brothers had gone to Alwar. They were not accompanied with his father as his father had died. He further stated that his father was killed by Brij Bihari. We have also examined the statement of PW3 and we find that no doubt can be created on the statement of PW3 Sunil. There was illicit relationship in between Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari. Brij Bihari was tenant in the house of father of Smt. Primila. Smt. Primila and Shreeniwas shifted to Jaipur but still Brij Bihari used to come Jaipur to meet Smt. Primila. PW3 has also stated that his father told his mother as to why Brij Bihari is coming at the house. The landlord and the other neighbors have also stated that Brij Bihari used to come at the house of Smt. Primila. There was a clear intention of the accused persons to commit murder of Shreeniwas. (15). PW3 has also stated that his father told his mother as to why Brij Bihari is coming at the house. The landlord and the other neighbors have also stated that Brij Bihari used to come at the house of Smt. Primila. There was a clear intention of the accused persons to commit murder of Shreeniwas. (15). The statement of PW4 Ramadar Singh clearly states that he asked Smt. Primila as well as Brij Bihari as to why Shreeniwas has not come to Bihar and both gave false explanation that Shreeniwas is busy in his work whereas Shreeniwas did not attend his duty after 14.4.2000. It is a settled law that false explanation connects the accused with the crime. There was no occasion for the accused persons to give false explanation when they were knowing that they did not see the deceased Shreeniwas after 14.4.2000. The accused Primila also did not explain as to why she did not register the case about missing of her husband during the period from 14th April to 13.07.2000 for about three months. Even in her affidavit she has not stated the date and day of missing of Shreeniwas in spite of fact that she is literate lady. The object to commit crime is also clear and circumstances also connect the accused persons with the crime. (16). We have also gone through the judgment cited and relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. There is no direct judgment which can help the accused-appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the link evidence available in the present case against the appellants. (17). In view of the above, we are of the opinion that learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences mentioned above. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals filed by the appellants and the same are accordingly dismissed.