Honble SHARMA, J.–Dead body of Ramdev was found in a house that was locked from outside. Prahlad, Ganesh, Smt. Nathi and Smt. Jadav, the appellants herein, were nabbed for the murder of Ramdev and put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri (Ajmer), who vide judgment dated July 11, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:- U/S. 302/34 IPC : Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/S. 342/34 IPC : Each to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. U/S. 201/34 IPC : Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution case is as under:- On March 28, 2000 at 6.30 p.m. informant Sohni (PW-20) submitted a written report (Ex.P/22) at Police Station, Sarwad, District Ajmer with the averments that although her marital house was in village Dabrela, she was residing from the last Diwali in her parental house. Around 12.30 p.m. on the said day while her father Ramdev was passing near the house of Prahlad and Ganesh and she was accompanying her father, Prahlad and Ganesh obstructed the path and took his father inside their house. When she made attempt to follow them she was pushed down by Nathi and Jadav. She had apprehension that her father was killed and his dead body was kept in the house. On that report Police Station Sarwad registered a case and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course he case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri (Ajmer). Charges under Sections 302/34, 342/34 and 201/34 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. Two witness in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. (3). We have pondered over the submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel scanned the record. (4). In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. Two witness in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. (3). We have pondered over the submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel scanned the record. (4). It is appears that although in the FIR Sohni (PW.20) gave eye-witness account of the occurrence, the prosecution at the trial relied on the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt. The circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants are as under:- (i) Deceased Ramdev was last seen alive in the company of accused persons in front of their residential house, from where he was taken inside the house. (ii) Dead body of Ramdev was found in the residential house of accused persons. (iii) Death of Ramdev was homicidal. (iv) Incriminating articles got recovered at the instance of accused Ganesh and Prahlad. (v) Motive. (vi) Conduct of the accused persons. (5). In regard to first circumstance the prosecution examined Ramdev (PW-9) Laxman (PW-10), Rampal (PW-12) and Sohni (PW-20). Ramdev (PW-9) in his deposition stated that on the day of incident he went to take food on the roof and while he was washing his hands he heard hue and cry of Sohni and when he reached on the spot he saw that Ganesh, Prahlad, Nathi and Jadav all the four were taking Ramdev forcefully in their house, Sohni was standing at the gate and was weeping. When he tried to enter the house of accused Nathi bolted the door of the room. On his pursuation crowd gathered and asked to open the gate but response of Nathi was that her daughter-in-law got affected by ghost and on this pretext she did not allow anybody to enter in the house. At that time voice of Ramdev was heard who was begging for his life. Ramdev then rushed to police station to inform about the incident. When the police reached in the village Nathi was sitting outside the house. The police opened the door of a constructed room and the lock of almirah (Bukhari) was broken where dead body Ramdev was found in sitting condition. Ramdev then rushed to police station to inform about the incident. When the police reached in the village Nathi was sitting outside the house. The police opened the door of a constructed room and the lock of almirah (Bukhari) was broken where dead body Ramdev was found in sitting condition. In his police statement (Ex.D/2) Ramdev however stated that on hearing the cries of Sohni when he reached to the street, Sohni told him that Prahlad and Ganesh dragged her father and took him inside their house. Laxman (PW-10) and Rampal (PW-12) also deposed that they were told by Sohni that her father was taken inside their house by Prahlad and Ganesh, Sohni (PW-20) supported the facts narrated in the FIR but in the cross-examination she deposed that FIR (Ex.P/22) was written by Sukhlal by his own will. (6). Nathi and Jadav in their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the date of incident they were not present at the place of incident. Jadav had been to her parental house for the last ten days, whereas Nathi gone to the field. Devkaran (DW-2) brother of Jadav deposed that Jadav came to his house on March 13, 2000 and resided with him till March 29, 2000 when the police arrested her. On March 28, 2000 Jadav was very much in the village Kharsad. (7). Having closely scanned the evidence we find that this circumstance could be proved only against appellants Prahlad and Ganesh and presence of appellants Nathi and Jadav could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Dead body found the house of accused : (8). In regard to second circumstance the prosecution examined Mishri Lal (PW-5), Ram Lal (PW-6), Ramdev (PW-9), Laxman (PW-11) and Sukhlal (PW-13). Conjoint reading of the statements of these witnesses established that dead body of Ramdev was found in sitting condition in a bukhari (Almirah) locked from outside. There is no material on record to show that the house in which the dead body was found, did not possess exclusively by the appellants Prahlad and Ganesh. Even in their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Prahlad and Ganesh did not state that the house in question did not belong to them. Thus this circumstance is also found established against them. Homicidal Death : (9). The third circumstance that death of deceased Ramdev was homicidal is also established. Even in their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Prahlad and Ganesh did not state that the house in question did not belong to them. Thus this circumstance is also found established against them. Homicidal Death : (9). The third circumstance that death of deceased Ramdev was homicidal is also established. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P/14) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Bruise (Ligature mark) 15" x 1/2" around the neck encircling whole of the neck situated horizontally blow thyroid coilless 2. Bruise 1-1/2 x 1/2" on the forehead above Rt.eye. 3. Bruise 3/4 x 1/2 on the tip of the nose. 4. Abrasion 3/4 x 1/2 on the back of Rt. elbow 5. Abrasion 3/4 x 1/2 on the back of Rt. elbow joint 6. Bruise 1/4 x 1/4 on R. side of face 1-1/2 blow Rt.eye 7. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/4 on the back of Rt. thumb. 8. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/4 on the back of left elbow 9. Abrasion 1-1/2" x 3/4 on the lateral aspect of Rt. knee joint. In the opinion of Dr.B.C. Jain (PW-7), who conducted autopsy on the dead body, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Recovery of Incriminating Articles : (10). On the basis of disclosure statement of appellant Prahlad, Bharmal Vishnoi IO (P.W. 17) reached at the Tand, the place shown by Prahlad, and got recovered rope used in commission of offence vide recovery memo Ex.P/26. Similarly shoes of deceased and key of Almirahs lock got recovered at the instance of appellant Ganesh vide recovery memo Ex.P/27. Recoveries so made got support of the Motbirs. The Apex Court in Pohalya vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 SC 1949 ) indicated that recovery at the instance of accused becomes incriminating because the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authority of concealment, namely, that the accused who gave the information leading to its recovery was the person who concealed it. In the present case the prosecution has established that the incriminating articles had been concealed by the appellants. Therefore, this linchpin of the prosecution case provides incriminating evidence against the appellants. Motive : (11). In the present case the prosecution has established that the incriminating articles had been concealed by the appellants. Therefore, this linchpin of the prosecution case provides incriminating evidence against the appellants. Motive : (11). In order to establish motive behind the murder of Ramdev the prosecution examined Sohni (PW-20), Chandra Prakash (PW-4), Dhapu (PW-8), Laxman (PW-10), Sukhlal (PW-13) and Bharmal Vishnoi (PW-17), Sohni (PW-20) in her deposition stated that the accused killed her father with a view to grab his land. Chandra Prakash, Patwari (PW-4) stated that a part of the land bearing khasra No.37 (old No.38) was entered in the name of Ramdev on the basis of will executed by Jhamkoo, Dhapu, Laxman and Sukhlal stated that there was dispute between the deceased and accused regarding agricultural land. The IO placed on record the copy of case No.199/99 pending in the Court of SDM Kekri wherein on the complaint of the deceased the appellants Prahlad and Ganesh were bound down under Section 107 Cr.P.C. to keep peace. Conduct of Accused : (12). A look at the statements of Sohni (PW-20), Dhapu (PW-8), Ramdev (PW-9), Laxman (PW-10), Kana (PW-11), Sukhlal (PW-13), goes to show that the appellants Prahlad and Ganesh disappeared from their house and they did not explain as to why they did not return to their house and which was the other place where they resided. This abnormal conduct of appellants Prahlad and Ganesh speaks volumes against them. (13). We thus find that the circumstances attendant upon in the instant case conclusively establish that appellants Prahlad and Ganesh committed murder of Ramdev and concealed his dead body in the bukhari of their house. The circumstances, established against them are capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that they are the guilty of the crime of which they are charged. The prosecution however, is not able to establish the guilt against appellants Nathi and Jadav beyond reasonable doubt. Possibility of their over implication in the case cannot be ruled out. (14). As a result of above discussions, we dispose of the instant appeal in the following terms: (i) We found no merit in the appeal of appellants Prahlad and Ganesh and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Prahlad and Ganesh U/s.302/34, 342/34 & 201/34 IPC are maintained. (14). As a result of above discussions, we dispose of the instant appeal in the following terms: (i) We found no merit in the appeal of appellants Prahlad and Ganesh and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Prahlad and Ganesh U/s.302/34, 342/34 & 201/34 IPC are maintained. (ii) We allow the appeal of appellants Smt. Nathi and Smt. Jadav and acquit them of the charges u/s.302/34, 341/34 and 201/34 IPC. The appellants Smt. Nathi and Smt. Jadav are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stands discharged. (iii) The impugned judgment of the learned trial Court stands modified as indicated above. _