JUDGMENT S.M.M. ALAM, J. AII the four appeals were heard analogous as the same arise from one and same judgment dated 2nd February, 2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 65/98 / 13/99 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, as such all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment which is being passed in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2002. 2. All the above four criminals appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 2nd February, 2002 and the order dated the 4th February, 2002, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 65/98 / 13/ 99 whereby he has been pleased to convict all the four appellants under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and R.I. for three years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as per the fard bayan of informant Doman Mahto (P.W.6) recorded by A.S.1. Sri D. L. Ram of Kowakole P.S. on 13.8.97 at 19.45 hrs. at village Marpo, P.S. Kowakole, District Nawadah, in brief, is that his daughter Sumani Devi was married to appellate Rajendra Prasad Arya about ten years ago as per the Hindu rites and customs. About four years back, Rukhsati of his daughter was performed and since then she was residing in her Sasural in village Marpo. She also gave birth to a female child who was about three years old. At the time of occurrence she was carrying pregnancy of about seven months. Further case is that on 13.8.97, at 12.00 in the noon when the informant was at his house, Mathura Mahto (P.W.1) son of Para Mahto came to his house and told him that the father-in-law of his daughter, namely, Parmeshwar Mahto, her husband Rajendra Prasad Arya, her Dewar and her mother-in-law had committed murder of his daughter and his maternal grand daughter (Natni) Sushma Kumari by assaulting and beating them and by strangulating their neck. He also told the informant that after committing murder they had set fire to the dead bodies after keeping the same on a cot. He also told the informant that after committing murder they had set fire to the dead bodies after keeping the same on a cot. The informant on getting the above information ,went to village Marpo and on reaching at the house of his daughter he saw the dead bodies of his daughter as well as his maternal grand daughter (Natni) lying on a cot having burn injuries on their bodies. The tounges of both the deceased were found protruded. On enquiry from the villagers, the informant was told that his daughter had gone to the paddy field after taking meal of her husband and her other in-laws from where her father-in-law, Dewar, mother-in-law and husband brought her to her house and on way they were assaulting his daughter. The informant was also told that the above named persons after bringing his daughter in the house killed his daughter as well as his maternal grand daughter. Further case is that the husband and other in-laws of the informant's daughter had been assaulting and torturing the informant's daughter for the last 4-5 years. 4. After recording the above lard bayan of the informant, A.S.1. Sri D.L. Ram forwarded the lard bayan to the Officer in charge of Kowakole P.S. for instituting the case and him self took up the investigation at the spot. On receipt of lard bayan at Kowakole P.S., the Officer in charge of Kowakole P.S. drew the formal F.I.R. and registered Kowakole P.S. case no. 71 of 1997 and allowed Sri D.L. Ram to continue the investigation. During the investigation, Sri D.L. Ram visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report of dead bodies and recorded the statement of the witnesses but as he was transferred, he handed over the charge of investigation to S.I. Sri Ashok Kumar, who after completing the investigation of the case submitted chargesheet against the accused persons under Sections 304-B, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under the above sections and vide order dated 21.2.98 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After commitment the case was lastly transferred to the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, where on 6.4.98 charge under sections 498-A, 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried and thus the trial started and by impugned judgment the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The defence case as it appears from the record and from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as from the evidence of D.Ws. examined in this case is that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased Sumani Devi died due to accidental death as while she was preparing meal her clothes cought fire and she as well as her daughter came under the flame of fire, sustained burn injuries and due to the said injuries she and her daughter Sushma Kumari died. 6. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court, it appears that on behalf of the prosecution altogether thirteen witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defence seven witnesses were examined but the learned trial court accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and rejected the testimony of the defence witnesses and thereafter the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial court did not find the appellants guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and, as such, acquitted all the appellants for the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment. 7. The contention of the learned advocate of the appellants is that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are bad in law as well as on facts. There is no eye witness of the actual occurrence and the judgment is based merely on conjecture and surmises. The witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution are not independent witnesses and they are closely related to the informant. There is no eye witness of the actual occurrence and the judgment is based merely on conjecture and surmises. The witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution are not independent witnesses and they are closely related to the informant. The trial court did not give any importance to the evidence of the defence witnesses although they were most competent witnesses being the witnesses of the locality. The evidence of D.Ws. which was in conformity with the evidence of P.W.10 was more acceptable than the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who were definitely not the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Further contention is that the post mortem reports of the doctor is influenced by the version of the informant and does not find support from the Medical Jurisprudence and, as such, the trial court should have disbelieved the post mortem reports and on the basis of the evidence of defe,1ce witnesses the trial court should have acquitted the appellants. 8. On the other hand, the contention of the learned State Counsel' is that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are quite legal, the same are based on the materials available on record and, as such, the same does not require any interference. 9. Let me see whether the findings of the trial court holding the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code are correct or not. 10. First of all, I would like to deal with the evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Shiv Dayal Das in order to know what is the expert opinion regarding the 'death of the informant's daughter Sumani Devi and his maternal grand daughter, Sushma Kumari. His evidence is as follows: -On 14.8.97, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sumani Devi aged about 24 years wife of Rajendra Prasad Arya (Appellant no. 4) and found the following injuries : External Appearance: (i) Froth and blood coming out from both nostrils. (ii) Tongue swollen and protuding from mouth caugh between teeth. (iii) Face swollen and congested. (iv) Eye balls prominent. (v) Superficial burn in upper 2/3 of right thigh and upper 1/3 of left thigh anteriorly. (vi) Deep burn found in face, scalp anteriorly, neck, chest and abdomen anteriorly both arms with plam. No line of redness and blebs were present. No ante mortem injury were seen due to burn. (iii) Face swollen and congested. (iv) Eye balls prominent. (v) Superficial burn in upper 2/3 of right thigh and upper 1/3 of left thigh anteriorly. (vi) Deep burn found in face, scalp anteriorly, neck, chest and abdomen anteriorly both arms with plam. No line of redness and blebs were present. No ante mortem injury were seen due to burn. He has further deposed that on dissection he found following injuries: "All viscera found intact and congested. Trachea containing blood tinged forth and mucous. No carbon particles found in trachea and bronchus tini patecheal haemorrhage found in mucus membrane of trachea. Blood clot found in both side of neck in muscular layer. Hyoid bone fractured, Stomach contained about 150 ML. of semi digested food materials with no carbon particles. Heart of right side contains few blood left side empty. Urinary bladder empty Uterus empty and normal in size. The cause of death was asphyxia and shock. The death of the victim might be by throttling may be by soft and blunt object. Time of burn was post mortem burn i.e. burn after death. No immediate death can be caused by such burn. Time elapsed since death was between 6 to 36 hours." 11. From the evidence of P.W.5, it is established that the burn injuries found on the person of Sumani Devi' was postmortem burn and not anti-mortem burn and the cause of death was asphyxia and shock which might have been caused by throttling. 12. Next I would like to see what is the opinion of doctor (P.W.5) about the death of Sushma Kumari. In this regard his evidence is as follows:- On the same day I also conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sushma Kumari aged about three years daughter of Rajendra Prasad Arya and found the following : - External appearance: - (i) Face swollen. (ii) Tongue protruded and swollen. (iii) Dermo epidermal burn on face, neck, chest, abdomen back, upper half thigh. Ante mortem external injury: (i) Skin and subcutonious tissues of nasal septam lacerated measuring 1/ 4" x 1/6" x skin deep. (ii) Inner surface of upper lip lacerated measuring 1" x 1/4" x mucus membrane deep with blood stain on teeth. On Dissection: All viscera found intact and congested. Trachea containing forth and mucous, mucous membrane of trachea congested, lungs congested and swollen. (ii) Inner surface of upper lip lacerated measuring 1" x 1/4" x mucus membrane deep with blood stain on teeth. On Dissection: All viscera found intact and congested. Trachea containing forth and mucous, mucous membrane of trachea congested, lungs congested and swollen. Heart on left side empty on right side full of dark red blood Stomach containing about 100ml. of semidigested food material. Cause of death: Shock and suffocation such as pressing over the nostril and mouth which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Cause of injuries was soft and blunt object occluding the air passage. Cause of burn-flame burn. Burn of the skin of face, neck, chest, abdomen, back and upper half of the thigh anteriorly, line of redness absence. Only a few vesication present which on removal white surface of skin exposed i.e. post mortem burn. Time elapsed since death was between 6-36 hrs. 13. P.W.5 has proved both the post mortem reports which have been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1 respectively. 14. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Shiv Dayal Das that after conducting post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Sumani Devi as well as Sushma Kumari he came to the finding that the burn injuries found on their persons were actually post mortem injuries and not ante mortem injuries meaning thereby that after the death of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari, someone had tried to set fire to the bodies of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari. Thus from the evidence of P.W.5 the prosecution case that firstly both the deceased were done to death and then their dead bodies were set on fire finds corroboration and the defence case that during preparation of meal Sumani Devi as well as Sushma Kumari accidently caught fire and due to that both the persons sustained burn injuries on their persons and died stands falsified. 15. Correctness of the post mortem report was vehemently challenged by the learned advocate of the appellants during the course of argument. The argument of the learned defence counsel was that the post mortem reports have been prepared by P.W.5 under the influence of the informant and the findings given in the post mortem reports are not in conformity with the Medical Jurisprudence. The argument of the learned defence counsel was that the post mortem reports have been prepared by P.W.5 under the influence of the informant and the findings given in the post mortem reports are not in conformity with the Medical Jurisprudence. According to the argument of the learned defence counsel, sometimes death occurs instantaneously in the case of burn and in that circumstances no sign of ante mortem burn injuries remains present on the dead body but in support of this argument, learned defence counsel failed to show anything from the Medical Jurisprudence that in the case of burn where instantaneously death occurs no sign of ante mortem injuries remains present. At page 317 of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Taxicology edited by B. V. Subrahmanyam (22nd Edition) following distinction has been made in between ante mortem and post mortem burns : Distinction between ante mortem and post mortem burn (a) Evidence of Vital reactions-Line of Redness In the case of a burn caused during life, a line of redness involving the whole true skin is formed around the injured part. It is a permanent line, persisting even after death, but redness of erythema, which is found beyond this line of redness due to distension of the capillaries, is transient, disappears under pressure during life and fades after death. The line of redness, being a vital function, separates living from dead tissue, and is often present in burns caused during life, though it takes some time to appear. It is, however, possible that it may be absent (in the case of a person of a very weak constitution who dies immediately from shock due to burns). (b) Vesication Vesication caused by a burn during life contains a serious fluid consisting of albumen, chlorides, and often a few polymorphonuclear white blood cells and has a red, inflamed base with raised papillae. The skin surrounding it is of a bright red or copper colour. This is known as true as compared with false vesication which is produced after death. False vesication contains air only but may contain a very small quantity of serum comprising traces of albumen and chloride. Again, its base is 1iard, dry, horny and yellow instead of being red and inflamed. (c) Reparative Processes Reparative processes, such as signs of inflammation, formation of granulation tissue pus and sloughs, will indicate that the burns were caused during life. Again, its base is 1iard, dry, horny and yellow instead of being red and inflamed. (c) Reparative Processes Reparative processes, such as signs of inflammation, formation of granulation tissue pus and sloughs, will indicate that the burns were caused during life. Burns caused after death show no vital reaction and have a dull white appearance with the openings of the skin glands coloured gray. The internal organs are roasted, and emit a peculiar offensive order. Spitz and Fisher have however, pointed out that it is not possible to establish, either with the naked eye or by histological examination, whether burns occurred shortly before death or soon after. Circumstantial evidence alone will provide the answer. 16. On the basis of the above guideline regarding the distinction between post mortem burn and ante mortem burn it can be safely held that on examination of the dead bodies of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari P.W.5 had found some positive signs on the basis of which he arrived at the findings that the burn injuries found on the two bodies were post-mortem burn and not ante mortem burn. 17. In the case of Sumani Devi, these sings are as follows : (1) Froth and blood coming out from both nostrils. (2) Tongue swollen and protruded. (3) No line of redness and blabs were found present. (4) On dissection trachea was found containing blood tinged froth and mucous. (5) No carbon particles found in trachea. (6) Blood clot found in both side of neck in muscular layer. (7) Hyoid bone was found fractured. In the case of Sushma Kumari, these signs are as follows or following signs were found present : - (1) Tongue protruded and swollen. (2) Skin and subcontaneous tissues of Nasal septum found lacerated. (3) Trachea contained forth and mucous and the mucous membrane of trachea was congested. (4) Line of redness was absent only a few vesication present which on removal white surface of skin exposed. 18. Thus, the perusal of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology also establishes that the findings of the P.W.5 that burn injuries were caused after death appears to be correct. (4) Line of redness was absent only a few vesication present which on removal white surface of skin exposed. 18. Thus, the perusal of the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology also establishes that the findings of the P.W.5 that burn injuries were caused after death appears to be correct. At page 265 of the book referred to above while discussing the death by strangulation the writer has specifically mentioned that in the case of death by strangulation following signs are surely found i.e. bloody foam escapes from the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes pure blood issues from the mouth, nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. He further mentioned that in case of death by throttling the cornua of the hyoid bone may be fractured also the superior cornua of thyroid cartilage. 19. From the perusal of the evidence of P.W.5, it appears that if the case of Sumani Devi, he had found forth and blood coming out from both nostrils, tongue swollen and protruding from mouth caught between teeth, trachea containing blood tinged forth and mucous. Blood clot found in both side of neck in muscular layer and hyoid bone was found fractured. In the case of Sushma Kumari, P.W. 5 found face swalloned, tongue protruded and swollen, skin and subcutaneous tissues of nasal septam was lacerated, inner surface of upper lip lacerated measuring 1" x 1/4" x mucus membrane deep with blood stain on teeth. Trachea was found congested. 20. Thus, the post mortem report of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari establishes that the features noted down by P.W.5 corroborates with the features mentioned in the book with regard to the death by strangulation. Thus, the evidence of P.W.5 coupled with the post mortem report establishes beyond doubt that the findings of P.W.5 that on the one hand the death of Sumani Devi as well as Sushma Kumari were not caused by burn injuries, on the other hand it establishes that the death of the above two deceased was caused by strangulation. 21. Let me see whether the findings of P.W.5 with regard to the cause of death of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari finds corroboration from the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 22. 21. Let me see whether the findings of P.W.5 with regard to the cause of death of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari finds corroboration from the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 22. As regards the oral evidence, I find that in this case the prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses, out of whom, P.w. 1 Mathura Mahto, P.W.2 Prabhu Mahto, P.W.3 Sita Ram Paswan and P.W.4 Basudeo Prasad are the witness who appear to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence of assault done to the deceased Sumani Devi by the appellant prior to the occurrence of alleged burning of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari in the P.O. house. They have also supported this fact that on hearing hulla that smoke is rising from the house of the appellants they rushed to the P.O. house and on entering inside the house they found the dead body of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari lying on a cot. They have also deposed that on observation of the dead bodies they came to the conclusion that both the deceased were firstly done to death and then their dead bodies were set on fire. P.W. 5 is the doctor, P.W.6 is the informant Doman Mahto, he is not the eye witness of the occurrence but he has fully supported the contents of his fard beyan in his evidence. P.W.7 is the I.O. of this case. I would like to deal his evidence at later stage. P.W.8 Amla Devi is the wife of the informant and the mother of the deceased Sumani Devi. She is also a hear say witness and much importance can not be attached to her evidence P.W.9 Raj Kumar Singh, P.W.10 Meena Devi, P.W.11 Mahabit Mahto, P.W.12 Kishun Sao have not supported the prosecution case and out of them P.W.9,10 and 12 have been jeclared hostile. P.W.13 Ram Swaroop Pandit is out and out a formal witness. 23. The argument of the learned defence counsel was that the independent witnesses, namely, P.W.9,10,11 and 12 have not supported the prosecution case, rather, they have fully supported the case of the defence that while deceased Sumani Devi was preparing meal her clothes caught fire and due to the accidental fire she as well as Sushma Kumari sustained severe burn injuries and died instantaneously. The learned defence counsel argued that from the evidence of P.W.9,10,11 and 12 coupled with the evidence of the defence witnesses, namely, D.W.1 Deoki Paswan, D.W.2 Ambika Paswan, D.W.3 Ram Mahto, D.W. 4 Sahdeo Yadav, D.W.5 Kali Mahto, D.W.6 Suhagwa Devi and D.W.7 Bishundeo Ravidas, it is established beyond doubt that the deceased Sumani Devi as well as Sushma Kumari died due to accidental fire when clothes of both the deceased caught fire while Sumani Devi was preparing meal. The learned defence counsel referred the evidence of P.W.10 Meena Devi in which she has deposed that she has got her house adjacent to the P.O. house and on seeing smoke rising from the P.O. house, she brought ladder and with the help of ladder she entered into the P.O. house and then opened the main door of the house which was closed, whereupon, several persons entered into the house and found Sumani Devi lying in a burnt condition. Her daughter was also lying having burn injuries. The learned defence counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.10 finds corroboration from the evidence of the defence witnesses. From the evidence of D.W.1,2,3,4,5 and 6 it appears that they have supported this fact that on hearing hulla that smoke was rising from the P.O. house they rushed to the place of occurrence and P.W.10 Meena Devi, who has got her house adjacent to the P.O. house, entered into the P.O. house with the help of a ladder and thereafter she opened the outer gate and they then all entered into the house and found that while Sumani Devi was preparing meal she and her daughter caught fire due to which she died. Some of them have deposed they when they entered into the house Sumani Devi was alive and she was taking her last breath. However, none of the witnesses has deposed that they tried to give any medical help to injured Sumani Devi and her daughter Sushma Kumari. 24. From the above discussions, it appears that two versions about the death of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari have come on record one version is that Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari were strangulated to death and thereafter their dead bodies were put on fire. This version finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 24. From the above discussions, it appears that two versions about the death of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari have come on record one version is that Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari were strangulated to death and thereafter their dead bodies were put on fire. This version finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The evidence of P.W.5, who is the doctor and had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari, also corroborates that firstly both the persons were strangulated to death and then their dead bodies were put on fire. Another version which comes from the mouth of P.W. 9, 10, 11, 12 coupled with D.W. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is that deceased Sumani Devi as well as Sushma Kumari died due to accidental fire as while Sumani Devi was preparing meal, her clothes caught fire and due to that both the deceased sustained burn injuries and died. In other to see whether the prosecution version is correct or the defence version is correct, I would like to deal with the evidence of the I.O. as well as some circumstances which well establish that which version is correct. 25. P.W.7 Devi Lal Ram is the I.O. of this case. His evidence is that on 13.8.97, he was the Officer In-charge of Kowakole P.S. At about 7.00 p.m. he received information by way of rumor that one woman and one child have been killed by strangulating, their neck and thereafter the culprits were trying to burn the dead bodies. He has deposed that on receiving such information he rushed to the place of occurrence and at 19.45 hrs. he reached at the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that on reaching there he recorded the fard bayan (Exhibit-3) of the informant Doman Mahto, the father of deceased Sumani Devi and thereafter he prepared the inquest report (Exhibit-5 and 5/1) of the dead bodies and thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that P.O. house consists of four rooms but the dead bodies of both the deceased were found lying in the Angan. He has further deposed that P.O. house consists of four rooms but the dead bodies of both the deceased were found lying in the Angan. From the evidence of P.W.7, it appears that there is nothing in his evidence to show that at the time of inspection of place of occurrence he had found any evidence that while preparing meal Sumani Devi had received burn injuries due to accidental fire. On the other hand, the inquest reports (Exhibit-5 and 5/1) of the deceased Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari prepared by him show that the same support findings of P.W. 5 that the death of Sumani Devi and Sushrna Kumari were caused by throttling Thus, the evidence of P.W. 7 contradicts the defence version that Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari had died due to accidental fire. There is one more circumstances which falsify the case of the defence and in my view it is the most important circumstance which falsify the entire defence case. According to the evidence of the defence witnesses, they all rushed to the P.O. house on seeing smoke rising from the said house and even P.W.10 Meena Devi, who has got her house adjacent to the P.O. house, has supported this fact but neither Meena Devi nor any defence witness has de- posed in his evidence that he heard any hulla coming from the house of deceased Sumani Devi. At least Meena Devi (P.W.10), who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, should have deposed that she heard hulla coming from the P.O. house. It is unbelievable that when deceased Sumani Devi had caught accidental fire she could not have raised any hulla but not a single witness has come forward to say that he had heard hulla coming from the P.O. house. This circumstance shows that when the deceased Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari received burn injuries they were not alive as only a living person can raise hulla but the dead person can not. This circumstances fully establishes that both the deceased were firstly done to death and then their dead bodies were set on fire and, therefore, I hold that the medical report is in conformity with the prosecution case and I do not feel any difficulty in holding that the prosecution case is true, whereas, the case of the defence is unbelievable. 26. 26. It has been argued on behalf of the defence that in this case there is no eye witness and the conviction of the appellants is based merely on conjecture and surmises. His contention is that conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC page 3562 (Vilas Pandurang Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra). He has referred paragraph 10 of the said decision which runs as follows: - "It has been consistently laid down by this court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt." Paragraph 11 of the said decision runs as follows : - "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." 27. Relying upon the decision referred to above, the learned defence counsel submitted that since there is no eye witness of the occurrence, as such, the trial court has wrongly held all the appellants guilty. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." 27. Relying upon the decision referred to above, the learned defence counsel submitted that since there is no eye witness of the occurrence, as such, the trial court has wrongly held all the appellants guilty. It is true that in this case there is no direct evidence that the appellants had committed murder of deceased Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari but then there is evidence of P.W.1,2,3 and 4 that just about an hour before the occurrence they had seen all the appellants assaulting and abusing Sumani Devi while they all were returning back to the P.O. house from their field. From the record it appears that at least four witnesses have supported the first part of the occurrence and therefore, there is nothing wrong for the lower court to hold that the appellants were the persons who had committed murder of Sumani Devi and Sushma Kumari. I am, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the trial court is based on correct appreciation of the facts and the materials available on record and there is no need of any interference in the judgment of the trial court. 28. In the result, I do not find any merit in all the four appeals filed by the appellants and, as such, all the four criminal appeals are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against all the four appellants are hereby confirmed. Appellant Deva Devi (Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2002), Parmeshwar Mahton (Cr. Appeal No. 231 of 2002) and Awadhesh Prasad @ Awadh Prasad (Cr. Appeal No. 269 of 2002) are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the remaining part of this sentence. Appellant Rajendra Prasad Arya (Cr. Appeal No. 275 of 2002) is in jail. He is directed to serve the remaining part of his sentence.