Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This jail appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.73/99, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The period of accused-appellants remaining in police and judicial custody during investigation and trial of the case is made deductible. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present matter are that some unknown person informed at the temporary police station in Ramdeora festival on 19.1999 at about 9:05 in the morning about dead bodies of three children lying near Ramdeora Railway Station just opposite to Rawana Rajput Dharamshala, which was reduced in writing in Ex. P/29 Rojnamcha and PW. 25 Prakash Singh, SHO, PS Pokran to verify the information reached at the spot at about 10:00 AM. He found there three bodies of children lying in a row. Out of the three dead bodies, one was of a male child aged about 8 years. The other two bodies of female child were seemed to be of the age of about 4 and 2 years. Strangulation marks on the neck of the the dead bodies of deceased children were noticed. The waist-belt of the male child mentioned the name of the school Bal Vidhyalaya, Baldev Nagar, Jodhpur. On each of the dead body, there was a toy and at a little distance from the dead bodies, biscuits, chocolates, burnt match-sticks were lying on the earth. A blood spot was also seen there. The surface of the earth was hard with grass and foot prints were not visible. On the overall assessment made of the situation, it was revealed that gruesome murders had been committed in the intervening night of 18th & 19th Sept. 1999 by throttling the tiny tots. The case, thus, was one falling under Section 302 IPC so some police constables were left at the spot to guard the site and for preparing Kayami Parcha, a copy of Rojnamcha Ex.P/1 was sent to Police Station, Pokran where a case No. 266/99 under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 3. PW. The case, thus, was one falling under Section 302 IPC so some police constables were left at the spot to guard the site and for preparing Kayami Parcha, a copy of Rojnamcha Ex.P/1 was sent to Police Station, Pokran where a case No. 266/99 under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 3. PW. 25 Prakash Singh SHO, Pokran along with other police persons reached the spot again on 19.1999, inspected the site, seized & sealed biscuits, chocolates, a two-rupee coin, Biris butt, match-sticks, one chocolate, and blood-smeared & control soil found at the spot. The same were marked after sealing them as A, S-1 and S-2. Fards Surat Hal Lash P/3, P/4 & P/5 were got prepared in the presence of PW. 2 Devi Singh and PW. 3 Bhanwar Lal. Panchnama Memo Ex. P/6 was also prepared. In the opinion of Panchas, the cause of death appeared to be throttling. The dead bodies thereafter were sent to the Primary Health Centre, Ramdeora and efforts were made for their identification. Wireless information was also sent to the Jodhpur Headquarters regarding the school name found mentioned on the waist-belt of the male dead body. The family members of deceased children came to PS Pokran. PW. 5 Pukhraj, who is brother of the accused identified the dead bodies at Primary Health Centre and submitted a report Ex.P/7 mentioning the names of children as Mukesh-6 years, Laxmi 4 years, and Prem-2years and also that the accused had taken away the children with him on 18.09.1999 at 5 PM on the pretext of visiting Ramdeora Mela. Memo Ex.P/8 regarding identification of the dead bodies was prepared so also the Fard Panchnama Ex.P/9 in respect of deceased children Mukesh, Laxmi and Prem. The postmortem of dead bodies was got conducted by the Medical Board. The reports of postmortem in respect of children Mukesh, Laxmi and Prem are Exs.P/26, P/27 & P/28 respectively. The cause of death as per the opinion of the Board is “asphyxia caused by strangulation”. The clothes worn by Mukesh, Laxmi and Prem were seized and sealed through Exs. P/10, 11 & 12. The dead bodies were handed over to PW. 5 Pukhraj through Ex. P/4. 4. On 26.09.1999, an information was received on wireless from Police Station, Udaimandir about the accused having been arrested. The accused gave information through Ex. The clothes worn by Mukesh, Laxmi and Prem were seized and sealed through Exs. P/10, 11 & 12. The dead bodies were handed over to PW. 5 Pukhraj through Ex. P/4. 4. On 26.09.1999, an information was received on wireless from Police Station, Udaimandir about the accused having been arrested. The accused gave information through Ex. P/33 showing his inclination to point out the place of committing murder and identified the place in the memo Ex. P/19 prepared in this regard. On 27.09.1999, PW. 5 Pukhraj produced a diary (Jindal Note Book), taken out from the house of the accused, which was seized and sealed vide memo Ex. P/15. The admitted handwritings of accused were obtained as S-1 to S-6 (Ex. P34 to 39) and the FSL report Ex. P/40 received in this connection revealed that the writings found in the diary and other disputed writings were of accused. The report also makes a mention that there were similarities in the blue circled writings, stamped and marked R1 to R6, A1 to A8 and Q1 to Q2. 5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 27 witnesses and in documentary evidence tendered 47 documents and 28 articles. The articles found on spot were sent for chemical examination. 7. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement of accused under Section 313 there has been simple denial of the charge and a plea of innocence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, vide his Judgment and order dated 24.2001 in Sessions Case No. 73/1999 - State Vs. Sohan Lal alias Parasram convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. 8. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State at great length and scrutinized the evidence and material available on record. .9. Sohan Lal alias Parasram convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. 8. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State at great length and scrutinized the evidence and material available on record. .9. It has been contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that in the present case the prosecution has not been able to prove the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the crime and unless the chain of .circumstances is complete, no conviction can be based and in the present matter the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy. According to the learned counsel, how father can kill his own children in such a merciless manner. The learned counsel next submitted that the writing on which the prosecution is placing reliance is only expert opinion and the same cannot be the basis of conviction. It has further been contended that in fact the wife of the accused wanted to get rid of him as she was desirous to seek divorce, therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. Lastly it has been submitted that the present case is one of no evidence, therefore accused should be exonerated of the charge of committing murder of his children. 10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that it has been well established by cogent evidence led by the prosecution that it was none else except the accused who took the children with him on 18th Sept from the house on the pretext that he was going to Ramdeora Festival and thereafter the accused did not return and the dead bodies were found on 19.09.1999 near the Ramdeora Railway Station. .11. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, present matter is one of the custodial killing by the accused of his own three children. It is the duty of the accused to have explained as to where he had taken the children on 18.09.1999 but nothing has been explained by him in his statement under Section 313 CrPC in this regard as well as the other incriminating circumstances placed on record. It has been further contended that the disputed handwritings, admitted handwritings and the writings made by the accused in Ex. Art. 17, wherein the accused has written in his own handwriting that he has murdered his children by throttling, were found similar in FSL report Ex. P/40. It has been further contended that the disputed handwritings, admitted handwritings and the writings made by the accused in Ex. Art. 17, wherein the accused has written in his own handwriting that he has murdered his children by throttling, were found similar in FSL report Ex. P/40. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor has been that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence available on record, therefore, there appears to be no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 12. We have considered the rival submissions made before us. 13. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the following circumstances: 1. The accused had taken children with him from his house on 18.09.1999 at about 5 PM 2. The children were found dead on 19.09.1999 near Ramdeora Railway Station. 3. The disputed writings and writings on Article 17 clearly revealed that it was the accused who had committed the murder of his innocent children. 4. The relations between husband and wife were not cordial as the accused was a drunkard and gambler. 14. PW. 23 Dr. Mohd. Yakub and PW. 24 Dr. Kanhaiyalal along with Dr. P.C. Dipen conducted postmortem of the bodies of three children in the Primary Health Centre, Pokran, District Jaisalmer on 20.09.1999. They were the members of the Medical Board. It has been stated by PW. 23 Mohd. Yakub and PW. 24 Dr. Kanhaiyalal that they conducted postmortem of the dead body of Mukesh aged 5½ years at about 9.30 on 19.09.1999. It has further been stated by them that on that very day at about 10.20 AM autopsy on the dead body of Laxmi aged 4 years was done and at 11.15 AM postmortem of the dead body of Prem 2½ years was conducted by them. In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of deaths was asphyxia caused by strangulation and that the deaths had taken place between 24 to 36 hours before the postmortem examinations. The doctors have proved Postmortem Reports Ex. P/26 in respect of Mukesh - 5½ years, Ex. P/27 in respect of Laxmi - 4 years, and Ex. P/28 in respect of Prem - 2½ years. The doctors have further stated that ligature marks were found on the dead bodies of the children and their hyoid bone was fractured. 15. From the statements of PW. 23 Dr. Mohd. Yakub, PW. P/27 in respect of Laxmi - 4 years, and Ex. P/28 in respect of Prem - 2½ years. The doctors have further stated that ligature marks were found on the dead bodies of the children and their hyoid bone was fractured. 15. From the statements of PW. 23 Dr. Mohd. Yakub, PW. 24 Dr. Kanhaiyalal coupled with the postmortem reports, it is amply proved that the deaths were not natural but homicidal. 16. In the present case, there is no direct evidence available on record and the case depends on the circumstantial evidence. Before examining the circumstantial evidence in the present matter, it is to be seen as to what is the circumstantial evidence and what is its evidentiary value. In criminal jurisprudence, circumstantial evidence is that which relates to service of other facts than the fact in issue; but which by experience have been found so associated with the fact in issue in relation of cause and effect that it leads to a satisfactory conclusion. It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. However, the Court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conclusions purely on circumstantial evidence as in evidence there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is that the former directly establishes the commission of the offence whereas the later does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of the guilt. .17. The Honble Supreme Court has consistently held that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the following tests:- .(a) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; .(b) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the .accused. .(c) Thecircumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no scope from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and .(d) Thecircumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocent. 18. 18. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court time and again, now we propose to examine the circumstantial evidence, relied upon by the learned trial Court, taking into consideration the submissions made before us. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Circumstance No. 1, 2 & 3: The accused had taken the children with him from his house on 18.09.1999 at about 5 PM, the children were found dead on 19.09.1999 near Ramdeora Railway Station and disputed writings and writings on Article 17 clearly revealed that it was the accused who had committed the murder of his innocent children: 19. The statements of the witnesses containing relevant evidence for the above circumstances is discussed hereunder: PW. 1 Mukesh Kumar has stated that on 19.09.1999 his duty was in Ramdeora Festival. On that day, Shri Jeet Singh, Head Constable gave him a report Ex.P/1 about the incident, which he delivered at Police Station, Pokran and on which Case No.266 was entered in the General Diary under Section266/99. PW. 2 Devi Singh and PW. 3 Bhanwarlal are the Motbir witnesses of the proceedings conducted at the spot on 20.09.1999. These two witnesses have stated that police had seen the site in their presence. Three dead bodies were found near the Ramdeora Railway Station. Police prepared Ex.P/2 Site Plan, Fard Surat Hal Lash of three dead bodies; a male child aged 8 years and two female child aged 4 & 3 years Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 respectively, and prepared a combined Fard Ex.P/6 Panchnama of dead bodies. All the memos contained their signatures. 20. PW. 4 Bhanwar Singh, ASI at the relevant time was posted in the Police Station Nokha but was deputed in the Ramdeora Festival from 06.09.1999 onwards. This witness has stated that on 19.09.1999 he received an information Ex.P/29 on telephone at about 9.05 AM in the morning from an unknown person that three dead bodies were lying near Rawna Rajput Dharamshala adjacent to railway bridge near Ramdeora Mela. The informant did not disclose his identity. To verify the information, PW. 25 C.I. Prakash Singh, along with PW. 8 Tulchha Ram Head constable and other police personnel proceeded to verify the information and reached at the spot. They found three dead bodies lying in a row on the spot. On each of the dead body there was a toy. The informant did not disclose his identity. To verify the information, PW. 25 C.I. Prakash Singh, along with PW. 8 Tulchha Ram Head constable and other police personnel proceeded to verify the information and reached at the spot. They found three dead bodies lying in a row on the spot. On each of the dead body there was a toy. At a little distance from the dead bodies, butts of beedis, chocolates, a two rupee coin etc were found. A blood spot was also visible on the earth. The memos were prepared at the spot. 20. PW. 5 Pukhraj is the real brother of accused Sohanlal. This witness has stated that about 8 to 10 months before recording of his statement, a famous festival Ramdeora Mela was being celebrated in the western Rajasthan in Jaisalmer district. At about 10 PM in the night one person came and asked him to join the Jagran in the house of Bhanwarlal. The witness has further stated that when he reached there, he outside the house of Bhanwarlal found police there who showed him some photographs of the children of accused Sohanlal which were identified by him. The witness has stated that when the police informed him about the murder of Sohanlals children, he immediately went to the house of the accused where accused was residing with his mother, wife and children. On inquiry, it was revealed that the accused in the evening of 18.09.1999 had taken the children with him on the pretext that he was going in the Mela at Ramdeora but they did not return thereafter. This witness has identified the dead bodies in the Primary Health Centre, Pokran. The witness has further stated that he submitted a report Ex. P/7 in the police station, Pokran. A detailed description about the children of accused and other things have been mentioned. The witness has further proved the memos prepared by the police of the clothes of the deceased children. Fard Ex. P/15 contains his signatures in relation to recovery of a diary and he has admitted on it his signatures. The witness in cross-examination though has denied the contents of Ex. P/7 but has admitted his signatures on it. 21. PW. 7 Rana Ram is the witness, who has stated that after seeing the dead bodies, it was revealed that the children were done to death by throttling their neck. The witness in cross-examination though has denied the contents of Ex. P/7 but has admitted his signatures on it. 21. PW. 7 Rana Ram is the witness, who has stated that after seeing the dead bodies, it was revealed that the children were done to death by throttling their neck. The witness has proved Panchnama of the dead bodies Ex.P/9. No cross-examination has been addressed to this witness. 22. PW. 8 Tulchha Ram is the witness who has stated that on 19.09.1999 his duty was in Ramdeora Festival and he along with PW. 25 Prakash Singh and other police persons had gone to the spot. The witness has supported the version of PW. 4 Bhanwar Singh and proved the memos and admitted his signatures on the Fards. 23. PW. 15 is Ramsingh. This witness has stated that on 18.09.1999 he was discharging his duties as Roadways Booking Clerk near the railway mela ground, Jodhpur. This witness issued tickets to the accused on 18.09.1999 at about 7.50 PM for the bus which was to start from Jodhpur for Ramdeora. The tickets were subsequently recovered from the accused when he was arrested. 24. PW. 16 Sanwatram Meena was the Station Master, Railway Station, Ramdeora. He issued ticket to accused on 20.9.1999 for Jodhpur from Ramdeora. The ticket was recovered from the accused when he was arrested. 25. PW. 9 Guddi is again an important witness. She is the wife of the accused. She has stated that she was married to accused about 10 years before the recording of her statement in the Court. Her elder son Mukesh was of 6 years of age and two daughters respectively Laxmi & Prem were of 3 & 1½ years. She has stated that accused took with him Mukesh, Laxmi & Prem in the evening of 18.09.1999 and thereafter did not return. She has identified the writings of the accused in Article 16 and Article 17(It is relevant to mention here that in Article 17 the diary, the accused has admitted to have committed murder of his three children. She has in clear terms stated that accused has murdered her son and daughters who were studying in Baldev Nagar School. In the cross, nothing has come out which may nullify the statements made by her. 26. PW. 17 Lalchand has stated that the police inspected the site and prepared memo Ex.P/19 in his presence. PW. She has in clear terms stated that accused has murdered her son and daughters who were studying in Baldev Nagar School. In the cross, nothing has come out which may nullify the statements made by her. 26. PW. 17 Lalchand has stated that the police inspected the site and prepared memo Ex.P/19 in his presence. PW. 18 Jalaram, who at the relevant time was FC, PS Udaimandir, Jodhpur, has stated that accused was arrested in his presence by Shri Chandan Singh, SHO, Udaimandir on 26.09.1999 vide Memo Ex. P/20 and on his search in a bag a black purse having telephone diary, two roadways tickets, one railway ticket, medicine for teeth, a ball pen, a tap, a cotton rope, one shirt, one pant, a muffler and one iron key were found, which were taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex. P/21 prepared in his presence. In the diary recovered, there was a note in the handwriting of the accused that he loved his children very much and that is why he had killed them by throttling. The note bore the date 19.09.1999. PW. 21 Chandan Singh, SHO, Police Station, Udaimandir has repeated the same thing what has been stated by PW. 18 Jalaram. PW. 20 Heeralal took the sealed articles from Police Station, Pokran, got prepared forwarding letter from the Office of S.P., Jaisalmer, and deposited the articles in the FSL. PW. 26 Babulal, was the Head Constable and incharge of Malkhana at police Station Pokran, who has stated that the sealed articles kept by him in the Malkhana remained intact. 27. PW. 25 Prakash Singh is the investigating officer of the case, who has conducted the investigation, visited the site and prepared all memos of the case. The witness has stated that he got conducted the postmortem of the dead bodies and recorded the statements of witnesses in the case. The Article 17 recovered from the house of accused was presented before him by PW. 5 Pukhraj. The sealed articles were sent for chemical examination. The disputed writings and admitted writings of the case sent for examination. The FSL report Ex.P/40 was received. In the FSL report, the disputed and admitted writings appeared to be of the accused. A lengthy cross-examination has been done but nothing material could be extracted which may disentitle the testimony of this witness. 28. The disputed writings and admitted writings of the case sent for examination. The FSL report Ex.P/40 was received. In the FSL report, the disputed and admitted writings appeared to be of the accused. A lengthy cross-examination has been done but nothing material could be extracted which may disentitle the testimony of this witness. 28. After carefully examining the above evidence, the prosecution has been able to prove that in the evening of 18.09.1999 accused Sohanlal had taken his children on the pretext that he was going to Ramdeora in the festival and thereafter he did not return. The dead bodies of the children were found near Ramdeora Railway Station which on investigation were found to be son and daughters of the accused. When accused was arrested, from his possession bus tickets and railway ticket was found and it was revealed that accused had taken his children by bus from Jodhpur to Ramdeora. In Ramdeora, on a telephonic information by some unknown person, the police started investigation and recovered dead bodies. The dead bodies were subsequently identified to be of son and daughters of accused. In Article 17, the accused had made a note to the effect that he had killed his children. 29. At this juncture, it shall be relevant to mention here that the minor children were in the custody of accused when he took them with him as per the evidence of his wife PW . 9 Guddi. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the wife of the accused who has clearly and without any manner of doubt proved the factum that it was the accused who took the children with him. Then, on the other day, dead bodies were found. The accused has not furnished any explanation. Even no cross examination has been addressed to the witnesses particularly PW. 22 Bhanwarlal and PW. 7 Ranaram. 30. After having examined carefully the evidence led by the prosecution in relation to above discussed three circumstances, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove the above circumstances by placing on record the rival and satisfactory evidence. 31. PW. 9 Smt.Guddis deposition to the effect that in the evening of 18.09.1999 accused Sohanlal took away her children on the pretext that he would go to Ramdeora Mela. 31. PW. 9 Smt.Guddis deposition to the effect that in the evening of 18.09.1999 accused Sohanlal took away her children on the pretext that he would go to Ramdeora Mela. The accused did go there but the three children taken by him were murdered and their dead bodies were thrown near the Ramdeora Railway Station. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness in relation to this fact that accused has taken the children from the house on 18.09.1999. The another aspect of the matter which appears to have been proved by the prosecution evidence is that the dead bodies were found on 19.09.1999 in the morning. PW. 25 Prakash Singh, the investigating officer, has proved the fact that on telephone some unknown person gave information about the crime. The information was reduced in writing in Rojnamcha Aam Ex.P/29. On the basis of above information, the police reached at the spot. The dead bodies were found there. The postmortem reports Ex.P/26, P/27 & P/28 clearly indicated that they died unnatural death. The above fact that the dead bodies were of the children of the accused has been fully proved by the evidence of PW. 5 Pukhraj and other evidence discussed hereinabove. 8.32. Pukhraj (PW. 5) is the brother of the accused. This witness has also submitted a report Ex.P/7 in Police Station, Pokran. In this report, it has been mentioned that this witness had made inquiries from his mother and the wife of the accused PW. 9 about the whereabouts of accused and it was intimated to him that accused had taken away the children in the evening of 18.09.1999. There is satisfactory evidence, which is corroborated by other evidence of the wife of the accused. The investigation revealed that accused after taking with him the children did not return back and ultimately he was arrested on 26.09.1999. No explanation has been furnished by him in the statement recorded under Section 303 of the CrPC regarding incriminating circumstances. 9.33. Once the evidence of PW. 9 Smt. Guddi is believed, then it can safely be presumed that accused was responsible for the unnatural deaths of the deceased children. The prosecution has further proved by cogent and reliable evidence that accused in his own handwriting made noting in diary Article 17 that he had killed his children. This handwriting has been identified by PW. 9. 9 Smt. Guddi is believed, then it can safely be presumed that accused was responsible for the unnatural deaths of the deceased children. The prosecution has further proved by cogent and reliable evidence that accused in his own handwriting made noting in diary Article 17 that he had killed his children. This handwriting has been identified by PW. 9. There is a reason to believe that PW. 9 Smt.Guddi was telling a truth in relation to the handwriting of the accused because when the handwritings were got examined in the FSL, it was revealed that the disputed handwritings and the admitted handwritings were having similarities. The FSL report Ex.P/40 corroborates the version of PW. 9 Smt. Guddi. The other evidence is also available on record which amply proves that diary Article 17 was of accused appellant. Even if we do not take into consideration the writings of the accused then also once it is established by cogent evidence by the prosecution that accused removed the children from the custody of their mother and grand-mother from the house and they were found dead then accused cannot escape his liability to furnish explanation. The evidence which has been discussed and relied upon by the learned trial Court, in our humble opinion, inspires confidence and we do not find a reason to differ from the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court in relation to above three circumstances. Circumstance No.4: The relations between husband and wife were not cordial as the accused was a drunkard and gambler: 1.34. PW. 9 Smt. Guddi has deposed that accused was in the habit of taking liquor regularly and used to misbehave with her and used to beat her as well as the children. She has deposed that there had been regular continuous demand of dowry from the accused and he was not taking care of her as well as children. He was also not attending his work regularly. She has deposed further that accused had illicit relations with other ladies. The evidence of PW. 9 has been corroborated by the evidence of PW. 10 Bansilal and PW. 11 Sukhdevi and also by the evidence of PW. 12 Ramchandra. The cross-examination addressed to the above witnesses could not establish that the witnesses were not telling the truth in the Court. 2.35. The evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Judge with reasons. 9 has been corroborated by the evidence of PW. 10 Bansilal and PW. 11 Sukhdevi and also by the evidence of PW. 12 Ramchandra. The cross-examination addressed to the above witnesses could not establish that the witnesses were not telling the truth in the Court. 2.35. The evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Judge with reasons. We have also examined minutely the evidence of PW. 9 Smt. Guddi and the evidence of her mother and father also. We are of the opinion that there is no valid reason to distrust the testimony of PW. 9 when she says that she was maltreated for the demand of dowry and accused was not taking care of family. The accused simply made a denial in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC It is correct that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but it is also correct that if any incriminating circumstances are brought on record by the prosecution by unimpeachable evidence then through cross examination or by furnishing explanation for the same in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, it shall be presumed in the absence of any material regarding the witness telling a lie till then, their deposition if inspires confidence will be sufficient to hold guilty the accused. 3.36. As discussed above in detail, as the evidence of the prosecution that PW. 9 Smt. Guddi has given a true and correct version, therefore, her evidence coupled with other corroborative evidence and circumstances leads us to draw a conclusion that behaviour of the accused towards his wife and children was unbecoming of a good father and a husband. 4.37. We find that the learned trial Court has correctly drawn conclusions in relation to the above circumstance also. 5.38. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 39. In the result, appeal stands dismissed after confirming the Judgment and order dated 24.2001passed by District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.73/1999 State vs. Sohan Lal alias