Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Dead bodies of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi were found lying in the cowshed and varandah of their house around 7.30 PM on 212.2000. Mukesh son of the deceased lodged written report of the incident at police station. The IO Surajgarh nabbed Satpal and Surendra, the appellants herein, alongwith Jug Lal and Rajesh Kumar and put them to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, who vide Judgment dated 11.01.2002 while acquitting Juglal and Rajesh, Convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulation. .2. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that were found established at the trial are as under:- .(i) Death of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi was homicidal .(ii) Motive. .(iii) At the time of incident appellants were seen nearby .(iv) Incriminating articles recovered at the instance of appellants. .(v) False explanation of the appellants 3. We now proceed to examine the material on record to find out as to whether the prosecution is able to establish the charge under Section 302/34, IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not? Homicidal Death: 4. The prosecution has established that death of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi was homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Exhibit P-26) Tara Chand received following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Stab wound with sharp margins 1 ½ " x ½ " x 2 ½ " Rt. side between 1st and 2nd ribsjust lateral to sternum directed obliquely downward laterally piercing pleura with laceration of lung tissue with haematoma. 2. Swellingdeformity of left forearm middle third on discretion fracture of radius and ulna with overlying laceration of muscles. 3. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " bone deep 1" above angle of left mandible with its fracture 4. Incised wound 3" x ½ " bone deep on left eye brow horizontally with fracture of underlying orbital bone. 5. Lacerated wound 1 ½ x ¼ " x bone deep supra orbital Lt. side. 6. Incised wound 4" x1" x bone deep vertically Lt. maxilla involving eye with fracture depressed maxilla. 7. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " x bone deep vertically with fracture of middle part of body of left mandible. 8. 5. Lacerated wound 1 ½ x ¼ " x bone deep supra orbital Lt. side. 6. Incised wound 4" x1" x bone deep vertically Lt. maxilla involving eye with fracture depressed maxilla. 7. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " x bone deep vertically with fracture of middle part of body of left mandible. 8. Uprooting of all incisors and canines of both jaws with depressed fractures with lacerated wounds. 9. Lacerated wound upper and lower lip 3" x full thickness of lips with facial disfiguration. 10. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " bone deep left parieto occipital area antero posterior in direction. 11. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ " x bone deep 4" below left tibia interior aspect in oblique direction. 12. Lacerated wound 1" x ½ " x bone deep Rt. tibia with fracture of middle part of tibia. 13. Abrasion 5" x ½ " vertically with haematoma 5" x 5" left mid thoraic region with fracture of 5th to 9th ribs and laceration of pleura and adjacent lung tissue. According to Dr. Maniram PW. 13 cause of death was coma as a result of injuries. 5. As per post mortem report (Exhibit P-27) Pholla Devi received following ante mortem injures:- 1. Incised wound curved 5" x ½" x bone deep on anterior aspect of Rt. thigh just above knee. 2. Incised wound 2 ½" x ½" x bone deep on lateral aspect of just above Rt. ankle protruding fracture of lower end of Rt. fibula. 3. Two parallel abrasions separated by 1" of 5" x ½ and 3 ½" x ½" on Rt. Arm laterally 4. Incised wound 1" x ¼" x full thickness of Rt. pinna middle. 5. Incised wound 4" x 1" x bone deep involving upper part of pinna (R) with fracture of underlying tempro parietal bone Rt. side and laceration of meanings and brain matter coming out transverse in direction. 6. Incised wound 4" x 1" x bone deep on Rt. parietal area antero posterior in direction covering injury No. 5 in post aspect with underlying bone fracture and laceration of meanings with outcome of brain matter. 7. Incised wound 4 ½ " x ½ " bone deep Rt. temporal region antero posterior in direction with fracture of underlying bone 8. Incised wound 4" x 1" x bone deep on Rt. parietal area antero posterior in direction covering injury No. 5 in post aspect with underlying bone fracture and laceration of meanings with outcome of brain matter. 7. Incised wound 4 ½ " x ½ " bone deep Rt. temporal region antero posterior in direction with fracture of underlying bone 8. Incised wound 3 ½ " x ½" x bone deep inter parietal region antero posterior in direction with underlying fracture. According to Dr. Maniram (PW. 13) cause of death was shock due to multiple injuries on head. Motive: 6. Informant Mukesh (PW. 10) in his deposition stated that even though his father Tara Chand and Juglal were real brothers, their mutual relations were not good. They used to quarrel over trifle matters. Their disputes went to the Courts. In 1998 when they were contesting a case, Satpal (appellant) had threatened Tara Chand and said that Juglal was like his father and since he was beaten up, he (Satpal) would take revenge. Mukesh further stated that just a few days before the incident, officials of electricity department came to his house to install electricity connection in the house of Juglal from the electricity pole belonging to Tara Chand. When Tara Chand did not allow the officials to give electricity connection to Juglal from his pole, Juglal threatened Tara Chand of dire consequences. At that time Sharda, the daughter of Juglal who married to Satpal (appellant) picked up a quarrel with Phoola Devi and threatened her. Testimony of Mukesh gets corroboration from the statement of Hari Singh (PW. 1), real brother of Juglal and Tara Chand, Gordhan (PW. 5) and Dharampal (PW. 6), who had gone to provide electricity connection to the house of Juglal on 12.2000 (twelve days prior to the incident) also deposed that since Tara Chand did not allow them to connect the wire from his pole, they could not provide electric connection to Juglal. 7. Having carefully scanned the testimony of Mukesh, Hari Singh, Gordhan and Dharampal we find that the prosecution is able to explain as to what could have been the motive of appellants in murdering Tara Chand and Phoola Devi. We find no merit in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence of motive in the present case. We find no merit in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence of motive in the present case. Facts of Babu Lal @ Ashok Kumar vs. State of Raj., 1997 CrLR 260 (Raj.) and Bhanwar Singh vs. State, 1987 CrLR 573 (Raj.) on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel are distinguishable and ratio indicated in the said cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The prosecution in our opinion has clearly established the motive behind the murder of Tarachand and Phoola Devi. Appellants were seen near the place of incident 8. The next piece of evidence relied by the prosecution is that around 7 PM on the date of incident the appellants were seen near the house of the deceased. Ramchandra (PW. 4) deposed that on 212.2000 at about 7 PM while he was taking the cows to the pond (Johad) suddenly cows turned towards the house of Tarachand. He then saw three persons coming from the house of Tarachand. In the light of torch he could identify only Satpal. The persons were having something in their hands and in the torch light he could only see the flush of that thing. Ramchandra further stated that on the next day when he came to know about death of Tarachand and Phoola Devi he intimated Mukesh that he had seen three persons coming from the house of Tarachand in the preceding evening Ramchandra identified appellant Satpal in the trial Court. Ram Niwas (PW. 18), a taxi owner, stated that on 212.2000 at 9 PM three persons came to him and asked him to drop them at Luharu in his vehicle. RJ-18/1549, when he declined they went back. Identifying appellant Satpal in the trial Court Ram Niwas deposed that he was one of those persons who came to him to hire the taxi. Bharat Singh (PW. 14) in his deposition established the presence of appellants Satpal and Surendra on 212.2000 around 6.30 PM in front of the house of Juglal. Bharat Singh stated that on the said day in the evening around 6.30 PM when he had gone to the house of Phoola Devi to invite her for “Ratijaga” (Religious songs performed during whole night) he saw appellants Satpal. Surendra alongwith Juglal and Rajesh sitting in front of the house of Juglal and talking together. 9. Bharat Singh stated that on the said day in the evening around 6.30 PM when he had gone to the house of Phoola Devi to invite her for “Ratijaga” (Religious songs performed during whole night) he saw appellants Satpal. Surendra alongwith Juglal and Rajesh sitting in front of the house of Juglal and talking together. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants vociferously persuaded us to discard the testimony of these witnesses on the ground that they were interested witnesses. We have cautiously scanned the cross-examination of these witnesses and we find that their testimony could not be shattered. Their deposition has a ring of truth and they are wholly reliable witnesses. The prosecution, in our opinion, has established that appellants Satpal and Surendra were present in the house of Juglal around 6.30 PM on the date of incident. Thereafter at around 7 PM Satpal and two other persons were seen coming from the house of the deceased and at 9 PM Satpal and two other persons had gone to hire a taxi. Recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of appellants 10. The other incriminating circumstances on the basis of which trial Court recorded the conviction of appellants is recovery of weapons, clothes and other articles on the basis of the disclosure statements of the appellants. Appellant Surendra was arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit P-2. While Surendra was in police custody he gave information under Section 27 of Evidence Act and on that basis Pharsi (Daratinuma) with broken nosal pipe band, allegedly used in commission of offence, got recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit P-8. A wrist watch, belonging to deceased Tara Chand, got recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit P-9 at the instance of appellant Surendra. Pant, shirt, stained with blood also got recovered vide Exhibit P-13. Appellant Satpal was arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit P-37 and at his instance one gandasi with broken pipe band got recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit P-5. 11. Motbirs Hari Singh (PW . 1) and Ramji Lal (PW . 15) supported the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants. The articles so recovered were sent for examination to FSL. A look at FSL report Exhibit P-101 goes to show that weapons and clothes recovered at the instance of appellants Surendra and Satpal were stained with human blood. 1) and Ramji Lal (PW . 15) supported the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants. The articles so recovered were sent for examination to FSL. A look at FSL report Exhibit P-101 goes to show that weapons and clothes recovered at the instance of appellants Surendra and Satpal were stained with human blood. It also appears that blood found on the clothes of Phoola Devi and from nosal pipe, recovered at the instance of appellant Sruendra, was of the same blood group A. Similarly the blood found on Gandasi recovered at the instance of appellant Satpal and the blood found on the clothes of Tarachand was of the same blood group AB. Thus, we find that weapons recovered at the instance of appellants clearly connect them with the crime. Ratio indicated in Thakur Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (1) RCC 120, on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 12. It is well settled that even if blood group is not known, the circumstances of recovery of articles stained with human blood at the instance of the accused cannot be discarded. In Babuda vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 63 this Court indicated in Para 14 thus:- “The learned Amicus Curaie stressed that even if recovery is believed, the group of blood not being known, the human blood on sword, shirt and lungi do not connect appellant with the commission of the crime. The report Exhibit P-19 speaks that blood groups were not known because the stains were disintegrated. It is in rare cases that blood group is detected and merely because the group of blood is not detected. , the circumstance of recovery of articles at the instance of accused in pursuance of his information stained with human blood cannot be discarded.” False explanation of appellants. 13. It is trite that the statement made by accused under Section 313, CrPC if found false provides additional link to the chain of circumstantial evidence. In the instant case the appellant Satpal in his statement under Section 313, CrPC said that on the day of incident he was at Delhi. Satpal could not prove his plea of alibi and his statement was found false in view of the testimony of Ramchandra (PW. 4), Ram Niwas (PW. 18) and Bharat Singh (PW. 14). In the instant case the appellant Satpal in his statement under Section 313, CrPC said that on the day of incident he was at Delhi. Satpal could not prove his plea of alibi and his statement was found false in view of the testimony of Ramchandra (PW. 4), Ram Niwas (PW. 18) and Bharat Singh (PW. 14). Having carefully scrutinised the material on record we notice that plea of alibi raised by appellant Satpal was afterthought. The statement made by appellant Satpal can led credence to the prosecution evidence. In Mohan Singh vs. Prem Singh, 2003 CrLJ 11 the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- “The statement made in defence by accused under Section 313, CrPC can certainly be taken aid of the lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313, CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.” We thus find that the false statement of appellant Satpal provides additional link to the chain of circumstantial evidence. Conclusion: 14. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Awadhi Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, 1971 (3) SCC 116 indicated that before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. 15. In the instant case we find that combination of facts creating network through them there is no escape for the appellants. The relations of the appellants with the deceased Tarachand and Phoola Devi were strained. Just twelve days prior to the incident the deceased were threatened of dire consequences. When deceased Tara Chand did not permit installation of electricity from his pole to the house of father in law of appellant Satpal, his wife Sharda threatened the deceased. Appellant Satpal himself threatened the deceased and told him, that some day he would take revenge. Just twelve days prior to the incident the deceased were threatened of dire consequences. When deceased Tara Chand did not permit installation of electricity from his pole to the house of father in law of appellant Satpal, his wife Sharda threatened the deceased. Appellant Satpal himself threatened the deceased and told him, that some day he would take revenge. From the site-plan Exhibit P-7 it is evident that except Juglal and his family members nobody resided in the vicinity of deceased and there is nothing on the record that could suggest that some other persons except the appellants, could commit the crime. Recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of appellants and false explanation given by appellant Satpal connect the appellants with the crime. Evidence collected by the prosecution is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that the appellants are guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellants is complete and incapable of any explanation or any other hypothesis than of the guilt of the appellants. 16. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed.