Honble BALI, J.–By this common order we propose to dispose of three connected criminal appeals as the same emanate from a common impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 25.3.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur, District Jaipur, whereas D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 573/2003 has been filed by Bajrang Lal @ Lala, Narsi Lal and Hanuman, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 620/2003 has been filed by Om Prakash and D.B. Criminal appeal No. 1026/2003 has been filed by Suresh Sharma. Appellant Baranglal @ Lala has since been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. Appellants Narsi Lal & Hanuman have been held guilty under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. Appellants Om Prakash and Suresh have been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. They have also been held guilty under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. Appellants Narsi Lal and Hanuman are real brothers of appellant Bajrang Lal. Om Prakash and Suresh are stated to be companions of Bajrang Lal in causing death of Laxmi W/o Bajranglal. (2). The occurrence leading to death of Laxmi, as per prosecution version, had taken place on 22.10.1988 at 7-8 PM. FIR with regard to the incident was however lodged on 27.10.1998 by Bala Sagar Sharma PW1, father of the deceased. Om Prakash and Suresh are stated to be companions of Bajrang Lal in causing death of Laxmi W/o Bajranglal. (2). The occurrence leading to death of Laxmi, as per prosecution version, had taken place on 22.10.1988 at 7-8 PM. FIR with regard to the incident was however lodged on 27.10.1998 by Bala Sagar Sharma PW1, father of the deceased. While unfolding the prosecution version he stated that he had married his daughter Laxmi on 4.12.1996 with Lala @ Bajrang Lal S/o Badri Narain Sharma, r/o Chhotiyoen Ki Dhani, Nayala. Even since her marriage, she was coming and going to her in laws. After her marriage, however, the elder brothers of the husband of Laxmi namely; Narsi Lal, Hanuman Sahai were annoyed as Narsi Lal wanted to marry his brother Lala with his sister in law (wifes sister). For that precise reason these people used to torture his daughter. They also used to threaten her that she would be killed or else would be defamed. Narsi Lal also wanted to establish illicit relations with his daughter. Whenever Laxmi would come to her house she would make all these complaints to her mother Parvati and sister in law (Bhabhi) Smt. Shakuntala and Vimla. Parvati had told her all these things but they would counsel upon Laxmi and send her to the house of her in laws. When these people started troubling Laxmi more, then he brought her daughter to his house and ever since she was residing with him. Despite that the husband of Laxmi came to his house located at the well and after threatening his daughter to be killed, he went away. On 22.10.1988 in the evening at 7-8 his daughter Laxmi, Vimla and Ganga Sahai were present at his house located at the well. At that time Lala, Narsilal and Hanuman Sahai, all three came in the mini truck and by enticing took her at night in the mini truck. When Ganga Sahai and Vimla came to know about it they informed him at his house upon which he told them that he would go to the house of in-laws of Laxmi and enquire from them the reason for taking her at night without asking him. When Ganga Sahai and Vimla came to know about it they informed him at his house upon which he told them that he would go to the house of in-laws of Laxmi and enquire from them the reason for taking her at night without asking him. On 23.10.1998 he went to Chhotiyoen Ki Dhani and enquired from Narsi Lal, Hanuman and his son-in-law Lala @ Bajrang Lal, upon which all three told him that neither they had gone to his well nor they had brought Laxmi. When he told Badri Narain for meeting Laxmi, he told that Laxmi had not come there. He came back to the village and sent his son who also searched for Laxmi and made inquiry from the village people, who told him that they had not seen Laxmi. He further mentioned in the FIR that he had complete suspicion that these people had either killed his daughter or had concealed her somewhere. (3). During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Vivekanand, as PW. 22, who stated that on 28.10.1998 at 5.10 PM, he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Laxmi W/o Lala @ Bajrang Lal aged 22 years. The dead body of Laxmi was found to have following injuries: ``1. Incised would 1/2 x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep placed obliquely on area near lateral end of right eye brow, 2 cm. Away from right eye brow. 2. Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 deep placed obliquely an area on right side back of neck at base torn border of upper most part of Scapular containing down wards and medically on dissection, it is muscle deep with dark colour haemotomma in surrounding. 3. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x skin deep on area 2 cm. Below injury No. 2. 4. Stab would 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity deep placed obliquely on right side back of chest level of 6th inter coastal space 6 cm. Away on right side from vertical column placed obliquely tailing downwards and medically on dissection manner walls of chest is continued through 6th space tearing pleura it has entered into lateral surface of lower lobe of right lung size 1-1/2 x 3/4 cm. x 1 cm. Right lung is shrunken. About 1/2 of its middle lobe shows contusion. 5. Stab wound 1.5 x 1/4 cm. x 1 cm. Right lung is shrunken. About 1/2 of its middle lobe shows contusion. 5. Stab wound 1.5 x 1/4 cm. x muscle deep placed obliquely at the level of 5th I.O. Space 3 cm. Away from vertebral column on left side. 6. Stab wound 5 cm. x 2.5 cm. x loops of intestines coming out on right lateral side of abdomen on area 5 cm. Above right crest iliac. On dissection there are cuts in the color of size 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. Each at 2 places through which faccal matter is seen coming out, inner walls of the cavity shows contusion mesentery also seen out at one place in nearby area. 7. Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity deep on area 1 cm above and medial to injury No. 6 inner walls show contusion. 8. Incised wound 1.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep placed obliquely on right lateral side of abdomen on area 4 cm above injury No. 6. 9. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep placed obliquely on area 1 cm lateral to injury No. 6. 10. Incised wound 9 cm. x 4 cm x muscle deep placed obliquely and slightly vertical tailing down wards going superficially as shown in diagram. 11. Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep on area 3.5 cm. Lateral to right anterior iliac spine towards right buttock. 12. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1cm. x muscle deep on area 5 cm. Medial to injury No. 11 as shown in dry. 13. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep placed obliquely on area just above left ilia crest on left lumber region. 14. Incised wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on area 5 cm. Above right iliac crest on right lumber region. 15. Incised wound 1.5 cm. x 1/4 cm. x muscle deep on inner surface of right side of lower lip. 16. There is fracture of right mandible seen as sharp vertical line from base of teeth between right lateral lower inciser tooth right lower canine tooth separating them totally and through gums going down wards cutting complete mandible in two places. (4). In the opinion of the doctor the dead body was in the state of advance decomposition with foul and offensive smell. (4). In the opinion of the doctor the dead body was in the state of advance decomposition with foul and offensive smell. The death had occurred 5-6 days before the dead body was subjected to post mortem. The death was because of shock due to collective effect of the injuries. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (5). The prosecution examined Bal Sagar, father of the deceased as PW1, Ganga Sahai, brother of the deceased as PW2, Smt. Shakuntala, brothers wife of the deceased as PW.7, Smt. Parvati, mother of the deceased as PW.8, Mahesh Kumar, brother of deceased as PW 14 and Smt. Vimla Devi, brothers wife of the deceased as PW15. These witnesses deposed with regard to motive which is stated to have actuated the accused to commit the crime. Before however, the Court might make a mention of the statement made by them it is relevant to make a mention at this stage that Bal Sagar while lodging the FIR had not stated even a word with regard to demand of dowry, that might have been made by Bajrang Lal or his two brothers Narsi Lal and Hanuman, right from the date of marriage up to the date Laxmi breathed her last. Bal Sagar, besides deposing in tune with the FIR lodged by him also stated that because of Laxmi not bringing Fridge and Scooter as also Rs. 21,000/-. Bajrang Lal and his two brothers used to ill- treat his daughter. While giving narration of the events that had taken place on 22.10.1998, he stated that Bajrang Lal came to his house located at well at 7-8 at night and at that time he was at his house, whereas his son Ganga Sahai, Vimla and Laxmi were at the house located in the fields. Narsi and Hanuman had also accompanied Bajrang Lal. They had come in the mini truck. They told him that they would like to talk to Laxmi. The truck was standing on the road and along with them nobody were else there. Vimla started making tea, whereas Ganga Sahai went to ease himself, during which time Bajrang Lal told Vimla that he would like to talk to Laxmi for two minutes at a place where there may not be anybody and he would like to take her. The truck was standing on the road and along with them nobody were else there. Vimla started making tea, whereas Ganga Sahai went to ease himself, during which time Bajrang Lal told Vimla that he would like to talk to Laxmi for two minutes at a place where there may not be anybody and he would like to take her. He took Laxmi to one side and these two persons by dogging her took her far away. When Ganga Sahai came back after easing himself he gave two-three calls to Laxmi and found that Laxmi was not there. Vimla and Ganga Sahai searched for Laxmi but she could not be found. Ganga Sahai and Vimla came to house at night at 9.00 and told him the whole story upon which he said that he would go in the morning and make enquiries from Badri Narain, Bajrang, Hanuman and Narsi, as to why they had taken Laxmi without telling him. On 23.10.1998 he went to the village of his son-in-law and asked them as to why they had brought her without telling him. They flatly refused by saying him that neither they had come at their well nor had brought Laxmi with them. In his cross-examination he stated that he was a teacher and therefore, he had written the report himself. He scribed the report at his house. When he had written the report his sons were at the house. He along with his sons had consulted each other before lodging the report. He admitted that his daughter got missing on 22nd but the report was lodged on 27th but he could not tell any reason why it was lodged on 27th. He also admitted that they had not lodged any report with regard to the demand made by Bajrang and his two brothers of Fridge, Scooter and Rs. 21,000/-. He however, stated that this fact was got recorded but as to why Police did not record the same, he would not know. Ganga Sahai, PW2 stated in his cross examination that his father had gone to Police Station Bagru at 1.15 PM on 27.10.1998 to lodge the report. The police had made inquiries from the appellant Narsi, Hanuman and Lala at night itself and these three persons had denied bringing Laxmi to their house. Ganga Sahai, PW2 stated in his cross examination that his father had gone to Police Station Bagru at 1.15 PM on 27.10.1998 to lodge the report. The police had made inquiries from the appellant Narsi, Hanuman and Lala at night itself and these three persons had denied bringing Laxmi to their house. Bajrang @ Lala had told the police that he had concealed the dead body of Laxmi a day next to when report was lodged and then on 29 the police had brought Lala to drain at Jagatpur where dead body of Laxmi was concealed. Smt. Parvati, PW. 8 stated in the cross examination that the accused had admitted before police 5-6 days after when they had brought her that they had killed Laxmi and concealed her dead body after putting in a sack. The information with regard to concealment of dead body was told by the accused at night. Her sons Kailash, Mahesh Radha Kishan and Ganga Sahai were present at that time. There were also other villagers at that time. There would be no need to make a detailed mention of the statement of Ganga Sahai PW. 2, Smt. Parvati PW 8, Rajesh Kumar, PW 9, Mahesh Kumar PW. 14 and Smt. Vimla Devi PW. 15. Suffice it however to say that it is conceded position during the course of arguments that none of them had made a mention of demand of any item or cash by Bajrang and his two brothers after marriage of Laxmi with Bajrang in the statements made before the Police and for having made such statement before the Court, they were duly confronted with the statement made before the Police. (6). Besides relying upon the statements of relatives mentioned above, who deposed that Laxmi having been taken by Bajrang and his two brothers on 27.10.1998 from their house and further the motive that actuated them to commit the crime along with the others, the prosecution also relied upon the statement made by Rajesh Kumar PW.10. This witness was examined to corroborate the statement of relative witnesses in the matter of taking Laxmi on 22.10.1998 from her parental house by the appellants. He stated that on 22.10.1998 at about 7-7.15 PM he was going to his house located on the well. As soon as he reached near Gavariya, a mini truck came not he road and stopped. He stated that on 22.10.1998 at about 7-7.15 PM he was going to his house located on the well. As soon as he reached near Gavariya, a mini truck came not he road and stopped. That mini truck was coming from the side of Ajmer. It had registration No. RJ 14 -G-6581. For the reason the truck had stopped he went towards it and from the side of driver seat Bajrang came down. He shook hands with him. Bajrang Lal, he stated was son in law of Bal Sagar. Two persons were sitting on the back side of the truck and there were two more persons as well. In total 5 persons were in the truck. He inquired from Bajrang as to from where they were, coming, upon which he told him that they were coming from the side of Ajmer. He told Bajrang to go with him at his house to take food but Bajrang told him that he was busy in the work of his fields as he was to carry the seeds and was in hurry. Bajrang had in his hands one bag which was in the shape of bundle. Two persons who were sitting at the back of the truck, came down, upon, which he asked as to who were they. Bajrang replied that they were his friends. Bajrang told the name of one Suresh whereas the name of other was Om Prakash. He at that time without going anywhere asked Bajrang as to who were those two remaining persons, upon which Bajrang told that Nar Singh and Hanuman were his brothers. In his cross examination he stated that the girl who was murdered was treated by him as his sister as any girl from the village would be so treated. He was confronted with the statement made by him before the Police with regard to number of persons where upon he stated that he had told the Police but as to why the Police did not record so, he would not know. He admitted that he did not know Suresh and Om Prakash earlier. He however, knew the brothers of Bajrang, right from the day of marriage of Bajrang. He admitted that at that time it was a complete dark but he had seen the accused in the light of trucks. He admitted that he did not know Suresh and Om Prakash earlier. He however, knew the brothers of Bajrang, right from the day of marriage of Bajrang. He admitted that at that time it was a complete dark but he had seen the accused in the light of trucks. He had gone to the village 5-6 days after the occurrence but he had not told his meeting to Bal Sagar or any one from his family. He told about the incident to Bal Sagar after reading about the murder of Laxmi. He admitted that he met Bal Sagar 10-12 days after the occurrence but he had not talked of this event to Bal Sagar nor he talked the same to any one of his family member. He was confronted with the Police statement where he had not stated that Hanuman, brother of Bajrang was along with him. He could not tell the colour of truck of which type same was as he had not gone in front of the truck and he had seen it only from behind. He had not talked to any one else in the truck. The prosecution also relied upon the statement made by Ram Pal PW. 4. He stated that one and a half year ago, the Police prepared a site plan of Bal Sagar fields. The fields were disclosed by Bajranglal. Again he said that Bal Sagar had told about his fields. The daughter in law of Bal Sagar Prem or Kamla, whose name he did not know, was also there. He was along with Bhanwar and Bajrang Lal. Police had taken his signature on Ex. P.2 from A to B. Bajrang Lal was ahead and behind the Police, he and Bhanwar were walking. First of all Bajrang took them to a place where daughter of Bal Sagar was killed. They found bangles of Laakh in which white stones (Nag) were embedded. Same were soaked with blood. There was a blood on the earth as well. There were signs of resistance as well. What ever place was described by Bajrang Lal, the police had made a site plan of the same which was Ex.P.3. Bhanwar had also signed Ex. P. 3. Bajrang was also present there. He too also signed the same. In their presence Bajrang also disclosed the place where the dead body was buried. There were signs of resistance as well. What ever place was described by Bajrang Lal, the police had made a site plan of the same which was Ex.P.3. Bhanwar had also signed Ex. P. 3. Bajrang was also present there. He too also signed the same. In their presence Bajrang also disclosed the place where the dead body was buried. They had gone to that place also, whereas Bajrang was leading them, behind him was the police and behind the police he and Bhanwar were walking. There were other persons as well. Bajrang pointed out the place where the dead body of Laxmi was buried. It was 100 ft. from the road. He dug the earth and took out the dead body. The police had made a recovery memo Ex. P4 of dead body which was signed by him. At the spot broken bangle of Laakh was also found which was also taken by the police. The police had also taken blood stained earth from that place. In his cross examination he stated that he was known to the police and whenever there was a requirement he did go to the police station and whenever there was no need he did not go. Bal Sagar had come to call him. People of Police Station had also called him. He first admitted that he appeared as a witness in number of cases but again stated that he had not appeared in any case. He stated that he would not know what had been mentioned in the recovery memo as he was illiterate. (7). The prosecution also relied upon disclosure statement Ex. P. 48 dated 27.10.1998 made at 11.00 PM by Bajrang Lal @ Lala and recovery of dead body pursuant to disclosure statement Ex. P.48. Recovery of dead body was made on 28.10.1998 at 10.30 AM. Om Prakash and Suresh too are also stated to have made disclosure statement with regard to dead body of Laxmi. These two persons, are however, stated to have made disclosure statement on 30.10.1998 at 4.15 PM. Spade Ex. P. 17 is also stated to have been recovered from Bajrang on the basis of disclosure statement made by him. Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh PW. 6 and PW. 26 are stated to be attesting witnesses of the recovery memo of Phavda. Police is also stated to have recovered pent and shirt of Bajrang Ex. Spade Ex. P. 17 is also stated to have been recovered from Bajrang on the basis of disclosure statement made by him. Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh PW. 6 and PW. 26 are stated to be attesting witnesses of the recovery memo of Phavda. Police is also stated to have recovered pent and shirt of Bajrang Ex. P.18 on 1.11.1998. Recovery witness of Pent and Shirts are also Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh. On a disclosure statement made by the appellant Om Prakash, Police is stated to have recovered a knife Ex. P. 19 on 1.11.1998. Recovery witnesses on the recovery memos are again Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh. This appellant was stated to be wearing the shirt seized vide Ex. P. 21 on 11.1.1998. The attesting witness of the recovery memo are once again Laxmi Narain and Bajrang. Suresh is also stated to be wearing pent and shirt seized vide Ex. P.30 dated 1.1.98. The witness who attested the recovery memo of pent and shirt are of Hanuman Sahai PW.12 and Gopal PW.13. The police is also stated to have seized a mini truck on 2.11.1998. The attesting witness of recovery were Laxmi Narain and Bajrang. (8). Laxmi Narain PW.6 After admitting his signatures on Ex. P. 16 and site plan from A and B, stated that his signatures were made on a blank paper. For what purpose the police had obtained the same, he stated that he would not know. He denied having known Bajrang Lal. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Bajrang Singh PW. 26 stated that three years ago the police had taken him to Chhotiyoen Ki Dhani and in his presence the police had recovered a Phavda regarding which Ex. P. 17 was prepared which was signed. He admitted his signatures on Ex. P.16 but stated that the site plan was not prepared in his presence. He admitted his signature on Ex. P.18 but he stated that the police had obtained his signatures on blank paper. He stated that knife was shown to him but it was not recovered in his presence. This witness was also declared hostile and was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Hanuman Sahai W. 12, stated that he would not know that what had happened and police had made no inquiries from him. He stated that knife was shown to him but it was not recovered in his presence. This witness was also declared hostile and was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Hanuman Sahai W. 12, stated that he would not know that what had happened and police had made no inquiries from him. This witness too was declared hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. PW. 23 Ishwar Prasad stated that on 1.11.1998 the police had recovered a pent and shirt from appellant Suresh. The police had made recovery memo Ex. P.30 which was signed by him. In his cross examination he stated that the date he had mentioned, he had already remembered it. The police had got removed clothes of the accused and seized the same. The police might have given him some other clothes but he had not seen the accused wearing the said clothes. He had again stated that he had other clothes but he would not know as to who had brought the same. He also stated that the writing had already been done and he had just signed the same. Hanuman was already present there. He also stated that he had not seen Suresh ever before. He again stated that he had seen him when clothes were taken from him and thereafter he had seen him only in the Court. He admitted that on the date when he had made statement, the clothes shown to him had no seal as was put upon it in the police station. He also stated that the clothes were unsealed on a date when he made the statement. (9). We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined records of the case. (10). We may mention at the outset that appellant Narsi Lal and Hanuman have been held guilty for offence u/S. 498-A IPC only. It is conceded at all ends that if there be no evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the demand of dowry or if the said evidence might be such that the same could not be believed by the Court, these two appellants would be entitled to acquittal. It is conceded at all ends that if there be no evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the demand of dowry or if the said evidence might be such that the same could not be believed by the Court, these two appellants would be entitled to acquittal. It may be recalled at this stage that Bala Sagar, father of the deceased who lodged FIR five days after Laxmi was enticed from his house,did not state a word with regard to the demand of dowry that might have been made by any of the appellants including the appellant to commit the crime was stated to be wish of appellant Narsi Lal who wanted to marry his brother with his sister-in-law (wifes sister). It was also stated in the FIR that appellant Narsi Lal wanted to establish illicit relations with his daughter. The latter reason of establishing illicit relations by narsi Lal with his daughter militates against the first reasons as also the very causing death of Laxmi. It is quite apparent that the statement made by the first informant himself came to be recorded after a considerable delay and that too after consultation with the family members. Witnesses related to the deceased also did not state anything with regard to demand of dowry when their statements were recorded by the Police u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. They likewise Balasagar tried to improve upon their version, in their testimony in court in that regard and were duly confronted with their statements made before the police. There does not appear to be any truth in the allegation made in the FIR with regard to the motive which actuated appellants to commit the crime. In so far as demand of dowry is concerned, the same was stated, for the first time, in court. If demand of dowry would have been actually made and that too persistently, there was no question that the said fact would have found no mention in the FIR. Bala Sagar, father of the deceased who lodged the FIR, was confronted with the statement and on that he had to say that he had got such facts recorded but why the police did not record the same, he would not know. The demand of dowry appears to be an after thought with a view to strengthen case of the prosecution and involving as many people as might be possible. The demand of dowry appears to be an after thought with a view to strengthen case of the prosecution and involving as many people as might be possible. Appellants Narsi Lal and Hanuman, in our considered view, could not be convicted on the basis of evidence as mentioned above, for offence u/S. 498-A IPC. So would also be true in so far as conviction of Bajrang u/S. 498-A IPC is concerned. (11). Appellants Bajrang, Om Prakash and Suresh have been convicted u/S 302 IPC. Bajrang, in addition to his conviction u/S. 302 IPC has also been sentenced u/S. 498 A and 201 IPC. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, we find involvement of appellants Om Prakash and Suresh in the commission of murder of Laxmi to be highly doubtful. Prosecution, however, in its endeavour to bring home the charge of murder against them, relied upon statements of Bajrang Lal, his other family members and the statement made by Rajesh Kumar (PW. 9). In so far as evidence of Bala Sagar and his family members in enticing Laxmi on 27.10.1988 and taking her away from the house is concerned, the same does not inspire an confidence whatsoever. If Laxmi had been enticed from the house of the first informant and under the nose of so many family members, there was no question for them not to have lodged the report immediately. First information in this case came to be lodged on 27.10.1998. It is interesting to note that not only Bala Sagar had visited village of the appellants the very next day on 23.10.1998 and found no clue of her daughter, son of Balasagar too had visited the village on 24.10.1998 and he too was unable to find whereabouts of his sister. The appellants had told both of them that they had neither brought Laxmi from their house nor she was with them. The appellants had told both of them that they had neither brought Laxmi from their house nor she was with them. If taking away Laxmi on some pretext from the house of Bala Sagar was considered to be a normal and routine act, which might not have made the first informant suspect about conduct of the appellants, the fact that Laxmi was not found in the village and the appellants had bluntly refused even to state that they had brought her from the house of the first informant on 22.10.1998, would have surely led the first informant and his family relations to believe that things were not normal. At that stage, at least the matter ought to have been reported to the police. The very fact that father of the deceased lodged report on 27.10.1998 speaks volumes of introduction of incorrect facts. the story introduced by the prosecution that the appellants had taken Laxmi from the house of the first informant on 22.10.1998 stealthily on the pretext does not appear to be correct. In so far as statement made by PW. 9 Rajesh Kumar who was examined to corroborate the statement of the first informant and his relations in the matter of taking Laxmi on 22.10.1998, the same also in full of discrepancies and improbabilities. It is not possible to believe that the appellants who were engaged in committing serious crime like murder on meeting PW.9 Rajesh Kumar would voluntarily or on his asking disclose all the names correctly. It may be recalled that as per the statement made by this witness when he enquired, the appellants correctly gave names of all the persons stated to be in the mini truck. That apart, this witness admits in his cross-examination that he had gone to the village 5-6 days after the occurrence but had not told of his meeting with the appellants to Bala Sagar or anyone from his family. He told about the incident to Bala Sagar after reading about the murder of Laxmi. He admitted that he met Bala Sagar 10-12 days after the occurrence but he had not talked of this even to Bala Sagar nor he had talked about the same to anyone of his family member. In this case FIR was lodged on 27.10.1998. Even dead body of Laxmi was recovered on 28.10.1998. He admitted that he met Bala Sagar 10-12 days after the occurrence but he had not talked of this even to Bala Sagar nor he had talked about the same to anyone of his family member. In this case FIR was lodged on 27.10.1998. Even dead body of Laxmi was recovered on 28.10.1998. Murder of Laxmi had become that if this witness had actually seen appellants in the mini truck with a bundle in their hand he would not have disclosed this fact to the father of the deceased or any of his family members. This witness, it further appears, tried to, improve upon his earlier version and was duly confronted with his statement made before the police. (12). Prosecution, for murder charge also relied upon statement made by PW.4 Rampal. His statement, however, pertains only to appellant Bajrang which we shall discuss while dealing with the case of said appellant. (13). Prosecution then relied upon disclosure statements made by appellant Om Prakash and Suresh. The same were with regard to recovery of dead body of Laxmi. These two appellants were stated to have made disclosure statement on 30.10.1998 at 4.40 p.m. It may be recalled that appellant Bajrang had already made a disclosure statement with regard to the dead body of Laxmi on 27.10.1998 pursuant to which dead body of Laxmi had since been recovered on 28.10.1998 at 10.30 a.m. For the reason that the place where dead body of Laxmi was buried had already become known to the police on the disclosure statement made by Bajrang Lal, the police did not take these two appellants to the place where the dead body of Laxmi was concealed. The place from where dead body of Laxmi was recovered was thus already known to the police and it was for that precise reason that these two appellants, after they had made disclosure statements, were not taken to the said place. There is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure statements. It was not disputed during the course of arguments that the statement made to the police either with regard to the commission of crime with regard to concealing of the dead body of Laxmi would be wholly irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. What however is relevant and admissible is the recovery that might be made pursuant to the disclosure statement as mentioned above. What however is relevant and admissible is the recovery that might be made pursuant to the disclosure statement as mentioned above. Not only that the place where dead body of Laxmi was buried had become known to the police earlier but when these two appellants made disclosure statements they were not actually taken to the place where the dead body of Laxmi was buried. The only remaining evidence with the prosecution, so far as these two appellants are concerned, is the disclosure statement made by appellant Om Prakash pursuant to which the police recovered knife vide Ex. P. 19 dated 1.11.1998. Recovery witnesses of knife are Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh. This appellant is also stated to be wearing shirt seized vide memo Ex. P. 21 on 1.11.1998. Attesting witnesses of this recovery memo are once again Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh. Both Laxmi Narain and Bajrang Singh however did not support the prosecution case. Police is also stated to have recovered a shirt vide memo Ex. P. 30 from the appellant Suresh. Attesting witnesses of this recovery memo are Hanuman PW. 12 and Gopal PW. 13. We have already made a mention of the statements made by these two witnesses. A reading of the same would clearly show that no reliance could be placed upon their statements. (14). The up-shot of the discussion as made above would rule out involvement of Om Prakash and Suresh appellants in the commission of crime of murder, On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that charge against them stands proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In fact, the entire evidence led against them rather raises suspicion with regard to their involvement in the commission of crime. Appellants Om Prakash and Suresh thus deserve to be given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges framed against them. (15). In so far as however case of Bajrang husband of deceased Laxmi is concerned, the same stands on a different footing. He was husband of deceased Laxmi. The prosecution version with regard to Laxmi having been enticed by him and his co-accused at night on 22.10.1998 has since already been disbelieved by us. If laxmi was not residing with her parents on the eventful day, surely, she was residing with the appellant Bajrang Lal. Laxmi died 4-5 days before her dead body was recovered. The prosecution version with regard to Laxmi having been enticed by him and his co-accused at night on 22.10.1998 has since already been disbelieved by us. If laxmi was not residing with her parents on the eventful day, surely, she was residing with the appellant Bajrang Lal. Laxmi died 4-5 days before her dead body was recovered. It is proved that the dead body of Laxmi was recovered on 28.10.1998. The doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Laxmi stated that the body was in a state of advanced decomposition and death had occurred 5-6 days before. Appellant Bajrang Lal in normal course must have known that Laxmi was not traceable. He took no steps in tracing his wife nor made hue and cry of such a big event nor reported the matter at any relevant place. He made no search for her either. This unnatural conduct of appellant Bajrang Lal points towards his participation in the commission of crime. This court is conscious that the unnatural conduct of the accused alone would not be sufficient to prove that the dead body of Laxmi was recovered at the instance of the appellant on the basis of disclosure statement made by him. Even if one might not place reliance upon the statement of witnesses related to Laxmi with regard to recovery of her dead body, available on record is the deposition made by Ram Pal (PW. 4). Bajrang Lal after making disclosure statement led the police party in which Rampal was also present. In the presence of this witness appellant Bajrang had disclosed the place where dead body was buried and the dead body was got recovered. Bangles of Lakh in which white stones were fitted, were also found at that place. There were signs of resistance as well. The dead body was found buried 100 away from the road. Earth was dug and the dead body was taken out. Police made recovery memo Ex. P. 4 of the dead body which was signed by PW. 4. There is nothing at all in his cross examination that might detract from his sworn testimony before the court. It is true that he stated that he had appeared as witness in number of cases but corrected himself by immediately stating that he had not appeared in any case as a witness. 4. There is nothing at all in his cross examination that might detract from his sworn testimony before the court. It is true that he stated that he had appeared as witness in number of cases but corrected himself by immediately stating that he had not appeared in any case as a witness. Defence was not able to bring on record even one case where he might have appeared as a prosecution witness. The very conduct of appellant Bajrang, coupled with the discovery of dead body of Laxmi at his instance, which was lying buried in a deep pit with marks of violence has been confirmed by the medical evidence. Prosecution, in our view, was able to bring home the offence against him beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Bajrang has been rightly convicted by the trial Court u/S. 302 as also u/S. 201 IPC. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against him u/S. 302 and 201 IPC passed by the trial Court is upheld. He is however acquitted of the charge framed u/S. 498-A IPC on parity of reasons given while acquitting his brothers Narsilal and Hanuman. His appeal is allowed to the limited extent as mentioned above. (16). In so far as appeals filed by other appellants are concerned, the same would be allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against them dated 25.3.2003 by the learned Additional Distt. Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur Distt. Jaipur is set aside and they would be acquitted of the charges framed against them.