G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal has been preferred by A-1 in Sessions case No. 518 of 2002 on the file of the V Additional Sessions judge, Nizamabad. ( 2 ) ORIGINALLY, there were five accused. A-1 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code (for short ipc ). A-1 to A-3 were charged for the offence u/s. 201 IPC and A-4 and A-5 were charged for the offence u/s. 201 read with Section 34 IPC. A-2 to A-5 were acquitted for the alleged offences and A-1 was convicted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted for the offence u/s. 201 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer s. I. for one year. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, leading to the conviction of the appellant, is briefly as follows: pw-1 is the father, PW. 2 is the brother, PW-3 is the sister and PW-12 is the paternal uncle of the deceased. The deceased was illitem son-in-law of A-1 and A-2. A-3 was his wife and daughter of A-1 and A-2. About six months prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased returned back: to his natural parents due to property disputes. But due to intervention of PW. 12 and elders, the matter was settled that all the landed property should go to the deceased and the deceased in turn should give rs. 19,000/- and 10 bags of paddy to A-1 every year. The deceased went back to the house of the accused and was living together. On 12-10-2001 at about 5 p. m. Ex. P-1 report was given by his father PW-1 that the deceased was found missing. PW-15, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same as a crime as man missing. Subsequently, investigation was taken up by PW-18, the Circle Inspector of Police. On 13-10-2001 on the basis of the information given by PW-4 that a-1 made an extra judicial confession before him that he killed the deceased, PW-18 proceeded to the village and recorded the statement of A-1 in the presence of PW-14. Subsequently, investigation was taken up by PW-18, the Circle Inspector of Police. On 13-10-2001 on the basis of the information given by PW-4 that a-1 made an extra judicial confession before him that he killed the deceased, PW-18 proceeded to the village and recorded the statement of A-1 in the presence of PW-14. In pursuance of his statement, A-1 lead them to the cattle shed and the dead body was exhumed in the presence of Mandal Revenue Officer and other panchas. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased, scene of offence panchnama was conducted and rough sketch was also prepared. A-1 was arrested and sent to remand. Autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and the Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have shock and haemorrhage. A-2 and A-3 surrendered before PW-18 and A-4 and A-5 were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet. ( 4 ) WHEN the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was taken up. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. 1 to 18 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-22 and MOs. 1 to ( 5 ) NO oralevidence was adduced on defence side, but Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. After conclusion of the trial, A-2 to A-5 were found not guilty of the alleged offences and A-1 was found guilty of the offences u/s. 302 and 201 IPC. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 5. The plea of the defence is one of denial, therefore, it has to be considered whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and the sentence imposed on A-1 are liable to be set aside or modified? ( 6 ) THE prosecution alleged that due to property disputes, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and when he failed to pay the money and paddy as decided by the elders, they decided to kill the deceased. In pursuance of that the deceased was killed and the dead body was buried in the cattle shed, which is situated within the compound of the house of the accused. In pursuance of that the deceased was killed and the dead body was buried in the cattle shed, which is situated within the compound of the house of the accused. ( 7 ) THE accused pleaded that the cattle shed is not adjacent to the house of A-1; that it is accessible to all and that there are three ways to reach the cattle: shed. From the above suggestions, the accused tried to give an impression to the Court that the deceased might have been killed by somebody and they were falsely implicated in the case. In 313 Cr. P. C. examination also, the accused did not give any explanation regarding the presence of the dead body in the hcouse and simply stated that they were falsely implicated. ( 8 ) EX. P-1 is the complaint given by PW-1. In the said complaint, he mentioned that his son i. e. , the deceased was taken an illitem son-in-law by A-1. On 12-10-2001 he came to know that his son was missing from the house of the accused. Then, he made enquiries from the villagers and they said that they do not know the whereabouts of the deceased. Therefore, he requested the police to take necessary action as per law. ( 9 ) PW-1 in his evidence stated that the deceased married A-3 and was living as illitem son-in-law in the house of A-1. He presented Ex. P-1 complaint about missing of his son. Later, the police informed him that the dead body of his son was buried in the cattle shed of A-1 and immediately he went to the spot and found the dead body of his son. He was suspecting that the accused killed the deceased and buried him. ( 10 ) PW-2, the elder brother of the deceased deposed that after coming to know that his brother was murdered and buried in the cattle shed of A-1, he went there and found the dead body of the deceased at the cattle shed of A-1. There were quarrels between A-1 and the deceased since one or two years prior to the death for distribution of property and cash. He was suspecting that A-1 murdered the deceased and buried him. There were quarrels between A-1 and the deceased since one or two years prior to the death for distribution of property and cash. He was suspecting that A-1 murdered the deceased and buried him. He denied a suggestion that iafter the death of the deceased, pw-1 and iiimself demanded the accused to give a share of their property to them and when tthe accused refused to give share, they were falsely implicated in this case. ( 11 ) PW-3, the sister of the deceased deposed that about three years prior to the offence, she went to the village of the accused and found the deceased missing. She went to the field of A-1 end found the police present tthere and also the dead body of the deceased at the cattle shed cof A-1. She was also informed that thers was a quarrel betweeni the deceased and the accused for sharing of the property. PW-4, one of the elders before whom a-1 alleged to have confessed, tiurned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ( 12 ) PW-5, the Village Administrative Officer, who was residing at Jorpur village, deposed that on 12-10-2001 between 8 and 9 a. m. PW-10 came to his village and informed that the villagers of khudavandpur beat all the accused alleging that they killed the deceased Devanna. The police officiate and all the villagers were present in front of the house of the accused and requested him to come to that village. When he went to Khudavandpur village, a-1 showed the place where the deadl body of the deceased was buried in the presence of Mandal Revenue Officer. The dead body was exhumed and inquest was conducted. He further deposed that there were land disputes; between the accused and the deceased and the disputes were settled by the mediators directing that the accused shall deliver all the property to the deceased and the deceased in turn shall give Rs. 10,000/- and 10 bags of paddy to A-1 every year. Afterwards, the accused and the deceased lived together under the same roof. The cattle shed of A-1 is attached to the: residential house of a-1. There was a door to the cattle sheid towards the lane of the house. He denied a suggestion that: the cattle shed is not adjacent to the house of A-1 and he is giving false evidence. The cattle shed of A-1 is attached to the: residential house of a-1. There was a door to the cattle sheid towards the lane of the house. He denied a suggestion that: the cattle shed is not adjacent to the house of A-1 and he is giving false evidence. He also denied a suggestion that the cattle shed of A-1 is accessible to anybody. ( 13 ) PW-6, who is alleged to have acted as an elder for the settlement of the dispute, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 1 ( 14 ) PW-7, another elder for the dispute also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. ( 15 ) PW-8, one of the villagers deposed that on the instructions of PW-5, he dug the pit and found the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that the digging of pit was in the cattle shed of the accused. There is only one way from the house of A-1 to enter into cattle shed. The cattle shed and the house of A-1 is situated within one compound wall. ( 16 ) , PW-9, a resident of the sarnie village also deposed that on the instructions of PW-5, PW-8 and himself dug in the cattle shed of A-1 adjacent to the westerrn side of the house and found the dead body of the deceased. PW-10, the Village Servant deposed that the police officials and surpanch came to their village and took them to the house of A-1. They have shown a place in the corner of the cattle s^hed of A-1 and asked them to dig, as the dead body was buried. Accordingly, they dug the place and found the dead body of the deceased. There are three ways to the house of A-1, but there is only one door to enter into the house of A-1. The cattle shed is at a distance of ten yards from the house of A-1. ( 17 ) PW. 11, the neighbour of this accused deposed that he has lastjseen the deceased about three years prior to his evidence in the fields while returning to the house. PW-12, the Junior paternal uncle of the deceased deposed that the deceased was taken as illitem son-in-law by A-11 when the deceased was 10 or 12 years old. Since then the deceased was residing with A-1 and later married A-3. PW-12, the Junior paternal uncle of the deceased deposed that the deceased was taken as illitem son-in-law by A-11 when the deceased was 10 or 12 years old. Since then the deceased was residing with A-1 and later married A-3. About six months prior to the death, the deceased returned back to his natural parents house and reported that the accused quarreled with him. But he and other elders brought him back and left witlr the accused. Thereafter, they lived amicably. On coming to know that the deceased was missing, they searched for him, but in vain. Therefore, they reported the matter to the police. Two days thereafter, A-1 informed them that the dead body of the deceased was buried in the cattle shed. The cattle shed is adjacent to the house of A-1. There is only one way to enter into the cattle shed from the house. Outsiders cannot go into cattle shed. He denied a suggestion that the cattle shed is accessible to any person. ( 18 ) PW-14, a villager, who supposed to spoke about the confessional statement given by A-1, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW-15, the Sub-Inspector of Police stated about the registration of the Berime and recording of the statement by the Inspector of Police. ( 19 ) PW-16, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of tfiie deceased, stated that he found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: i) An incised wound below the; thyroid cartilage of the tranchea measuring about 3x2:2 inches, ii) Incised wound below the above wound measuring about 3x2x2 inches. All the above injuries ca i be caused with sharp edged weapons. He opined that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to the receipt of grievous incised wound to the throat of the deceased. He denied a suggestion that the time of death was given by him basing on the information given by the police. ( 20 ) PW-17 is the photographer, who took photos of the dead body of the deceased. He denied a suggestion that the time of death was given by him basing on the information given by the police. ( 20 ) PW-17 is the photographer, who took photos of the dead body of the deceased. PW-18 is the Investigating Officer, who stated about the confessional statement given by A-1, observation of the scene of offence, holding inquest over the dead body the deceased, sending the dead body for post-mortem examination, arrest of the accused, recording the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation filing the charge sheet etc. ( 21 ) CROM the above evidence, it is not disclosed whether anybody saw the accused killing the deceased. The prosecution depended solely on the circumstantia evidence and confessional statement alleged to be made by A-1. , But the elders, before whom the accused alleged to have confessed, did not support the prosecution. Therefore, the extra judicial confession said to be made by A-1 cannot be relied on, even to corroborate the other circumstances placed by the prosecution. ( 22 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that the deceased was killed and buried in the cattle shed of A-1, which was under the exclusive possession of the accused. Though there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the failure of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the dead body of the deceased was found in the house clearly makes out a case that A-1 was responsible for the death of the deceased. Reliance is placed on the following authority. In Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab the Supreme court while dealing with the conduct of accused, making of disclosure statement and recovery of dead body, held as follows: "though the conduct of the accused by Itself may not be of much consequence but when considered along with the other two circumstances, that is the disclosure statement suffered by. the accused leading to the recovery of the dead body from his house on his pointing out, assumes much significance. The disclosure statement and recovery of the dead body are both highly incriminating circumstance and both the circumstances have not only been isuccessfuliy established by the prosecution but they also connect definitely and positively the accused with the crime. There was no infirmity insofar as the evidence regarding the disclosure statement or. The disclosure statement and recovery of the dead body are both highly incriminating circumstance and both the circumstances have not only been isuccessfuliy established by the prosecution but they also connect definitely and positively the accused with the crime. There was no infirmity insofar as the evidence regarding the disclosure statement or. the recovery of the dead body is concerned, Each one of these circumstances, which has been established by the prosecution against the accused, has been sucoassfully proved. The chain of circumstances against the accused is so complete that it excludes the possibility of any hypothesis other than the one, which is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. All the circumstances from which the inferences have been drawn have been firmly established by the prosecution and have remained unchallenged in the cross-examimation of the prosecution witnesses. All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the accused definitely and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused appellant and taken cumulatively form a chain so complete that there Is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused appellant and none else. The medical evidence also lends credence to the prosecution case against the accused. May be, he also had some accomplices but since the prosecution evidence Is deficient, on that account, it is nott possible to identify those accomplices. Nonetheless, the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond every reasonable doubt. He is therefore, convicted for an offence under S. 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life arid a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, td further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years as recorded by the designated Court is maintained. " Therefore, the trial Court was right in committing him for the offences u/s. 302 and 201ipc. ( 23 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution relied solely on the confessional statement of accused. But as the mediators, before whom he is alleged to hcjve made the confessional stattemant, turned hostile and no reliance can be placed on the statement said to be given by the accused. After excluding the confessional statement, there is no material to the prosecution to establish that the accused was responsible for the commission off offence. But as the mediators, before whom he is alleged to hcjve made the confessional stattemant, turned hostile and no reliance can be placed on the statement said to be given by the accused. After excluding the confessional statement, there is no material to the prosecution to establish that the accused was responsible for the commission off offence. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as recovery of the dead body of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution witnesses stated that the place is accessible to the public. Therefore, there is likelihood to any person killing the person and burying the dead body in the cattle shed of A-1. Hence, there is any amount of doubt as to who killed the deceased and who buried the dead body. Therefore, the benefit must be given to the accused. ( 25 ) IN the present case, the rough sketch was prepared in the presence of mediators and it was marked as Ex. P-19. Ex. P-18 is the scene of offence observation panchnama to indicate the place at which the dead body was buried and where the place is accessible to outsiders. In Ex. P-19, it was indicated that the house of the accused consists of two rooms. Adjacent to those rooms, to the eastern side, there is a cattle shed and to the north-western corner, there is goat shed. The house is surrendered by a compound wall and there is only one gate on the north-western corner leading to the goat shed and cattle shed. There is no other doorway from any other direction leading to the goat shed. The place of burying of the dead body is less than three feet from the wall of the house. ( 26 ) IN Ex. P-18 scene of offence panchnama, it was mentioned that the scene of offence is in goat shed towards east of the house of the accused. It was roofed with tin surrounded by cement wall around it. The docor of the shed is towards north and towards south the wall of the shed lies. The entrance to go to the house of A-1 is towards western side. The dead body of the deceased was buried by the slide of the wall of the goat shed towards western side in a pit, From the said pit at a distance of three feet, there is a bathroom. The entrance to go to the house of A-1 is towards western side. The dead body of the deceased was buried by the slide of the wall of the goat shed towards western side in a pit, From the said pit at a distance of three feet, there is a bathroom. The house consists of two rooms. There is a door on the western side at a distance of 10 feet to come out of the house. There are houses abutting the house of the accused. ( 27 ) FROM the details given in the scene of offence panchnama, in the rough sketch and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the house: is surrounded by a cement wall covering with tin roof and it has only ore doorway. If the doorway is closed, there is no exit to any other person to enter into the house or cattle shed. The prosecution established that the dead body was recovered from the said cattle shed. The accused tried to project the cattle shed is at a different place and it was not adjacent to the house, but from the evidence of witnesses, the rough sketch of the scene of offence observation panchnama clearly established that the: cattle shed is adjacent to the house of the accused and the dead body was buried at a distance of less than three feet from the bathroom. When the house is in the exclusive possession of A-1, nobody is able to bring the dead body into the house after killing the deceased somewhere else. There was no necessity to the outsiders, even if they kill the deceased, to bring the dead body back and bury in the house of the accused. If somebody killed the deceased, they would have buried the dead body somewhere else or buried the dead body where they killed the deceased. When once the house is in the exclusive possession of A-1, the dead body was found in the said premises and if: remained like that more than 10 days, it cannot be believed that the accused had no opportunity to see the traces of digging pit and new earth after burying the dead body. When once the house is in the exclusive possession of A-1, the dead body was found in the said premises and if: remained like that more than 10 days, it cannot be believed that the accused had no opportunity to see the traces of digging pit and new earth after burying the dead body. In the absence of any explanation from a-l that others have access to the scene of offence, an inference can safely be drawn that A-1 was responsible for the death of the deceased and he also screened the evidence by burying the dead body. The post-mortem report given by PW-16 clearly established that the death of deceased was due to injury on the neck and it is homicidal death. ( 28 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Suresh the Supreme Court held that when there is recovery of the dead body from the place pointed out by the accused, it is for him to explain that he has seen someone else concealing the dead body at that place or he would have been told by somebody else that the dead body was concealed there. If the accused does not tell the Court about the happening of any of the two possibilities, the Court can assume that the accused had concealed the dead body. 1 2000 SCC (Cri) 263 ( 29 ) THE prosecution witnesses also stated about the disputes between the deceased and the accused regarding the sharing of the properties. Therefore, there is sufficient motive for A-1 to attack the deceased, As the dead body was found in the premises, which is under exclusive control of A-1, f. he non-explanation of the circumstances under which the dead bodt was buried in his house, is leading to an inference that he alone was responsible for the commission of offence. After going through the evidence and the judgment of the trial Court, we are of the view that the trial Court rightly came to a conclusion that A-1 was responsible for the commission of offence and also for screening of the evidence. After going through the evidence, v/e concur with the view expressed by the trial Court and we do not find any credence to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. ( 30 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court against A-1 in all respects.