Judgement [Per: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.] This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein-after for brevity referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 03-05-1988, passed in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1987, whereby the then learned Sessions Judge, Almora has convicted appellant Rajendra Singh under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as LP:C.) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., and to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of LP.C. By said judgment and order, appellant No.2 Bishan Singh has been convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 LP.C. and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that about 7 - 8 years before the date of the incident, Rajendra Singh (appellant No.1) resident of village Lweta (District Almora) was married to Smt. Kalawati (deceased), daughter of Maghan Singh (P.W. 2), 'resident of village Kotgarha.ln December, 1986, Smt. Kalawati (wife of accused / appellant Rajendra Singh) had gone to her father's house along with her two years' old son. When she failed to come back to her husband's (accused / appellant Rajendra Singh) house on the expected date, the accused Rajendra Singh went to the house of his father-in-law and forcibly brought his two-year-old son with him. On the next day, Smt. Kalawati (deceased), weeping, also reached back to her husband's house. On 21-01-1987, Dan Singh (brother of the deceased) was told by the accused / appellant Rajendra Singh, at his shop in village Ramtola that Kalawati, has disappeared and asked him to go to his house and inquire about her. On that very day, Pooran Singh, another brother of the deceased, when came to the house of accused Rajendra Singh (husband of deceased) with some gifts sent on the occasion of festival, he was told by mother-in-law of Smt. Kalawati (deceased) that she had already died. On 22-01-1987, when Maghan Singh (P.W.2), father of the deceased, came and met accused / appellants Rajendra Singh and Bishan Singh they told him that Kalawati has died and her body was lying in the forest. On 22-01-1987, when Maghan Singh (P.W.2), father of the deceased, came and met accused / appellants Rajendra Singh and Bishan Singh they told him that Kalawati has died and her body was lying in the forest. On this, Maghan Singh (P.W. 2) went to the forest and saw the dead body of his daughter, hanging on a tree with one knee and other foot touching the ground, and her back was resting on a rock with a cord in her neck. On that very day i.e. 22-01-1987, Puran Singh (P.W. 1), Patwari of Patti Trinali, received an information at about 9:30 A.M. from Chandan Singh and one other person that the daughter-in-law of Bishan Singh (accused / appellant No.2) had committed suicide by hanging herself (In Uttaranchal hills, in rural areas, revenue officers are given police powers by the State). On receiving the information, Sri Puran Singh, Patwari (P.W.1) reached at the place of incident, where he found Gulab Singh, Gram Pradhan of village Lweta, Maghan Singh (P.W. 2), the accused / appellant No.2 Bishan Singh, and Gram Pradhan Bhaisiyathana, were present near the dead body. P.W.1 Pooran Singh, asked Gram Pradhan and accused Bishan Singh to give a report, but they refused ,to do so and told that if the inquest report is prepared and the dead body is permitted to be cremated without autopsy, they would give the report, otherwise not. Thereupon, PW.1 Pooran.Singh, went to the Narain Singh Mehta (P.W. 5),.Patwari of Patti Ungurta having jurisdiction of the circle. P.W. 1 Pooran Singh along with P.W. 5 Narain Singh Mehta, again came to the place of occurrence. P.W. 5 Patwari Narain Singh, prepared the inquest report (Ext. A-2) of the dead body. He took out cord (Ext. 1) from the neck of the dead body, sealed it and prepared its memo (Ext. A-3). He also took out theornaments from the dead body and handed it to the husband (accused / appellant Rajendra Singh) of the deceased and list (Ext. A-4) of the same was prepared. Thereafter he prepared other necessary papers site plan (Ext. A-5), sample seal (Ext. A-6) and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ext. A-7). The dead body was sent to Ranikhet for post mortem examination. P.W. 3 Dr. A-4) of the same was prepared. Thereafter he prepared other necessary papers site plan (Ext. A-5), sample seal (Ext. A-6) and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ext. A-7). The dead body was sent to Ranikhet for post mortem examination. P.W. 3 Dr. Rajesh Chandra Dimri conducted autopsy on the dead body on 24-01-1987, at about 2:00 P.M. It appears that on the basis of report of post mortem examination, (as asphyxia resulting from strangulation, was found cause of death), the crime number was registered by the Patwari of Patti Lingurta. The Investigating Officer, on 20-02-1987, arrested accused / appellants Rajendra Singh, his mother Parwati Devi, his father Bishan Singh and his sister-in-law Jiwanti Devi. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. A-9) was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora on receipt of the charge sheet, after providing the necessary copies to the accused persons, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Almora. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and defence framed charge of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against accused Rajendra Singh. As against accused Bishan Singh, charge of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed. Charge of offence punishable under Sections 302 / 34 and 201 /34 I.P.C., were framed against the accused persons Smt. Parwati Devi and Jiwanti Devi. All the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Puran Singh, Patwari P.W. 2 Maghan Singh (father of the deceased), P.W. 3 Dr. R.C. Dimari, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, P.W.4 Dungar Singh (declared hostile) and P.W. 5 Narain Singh Mehta, the Investigating Officer, who investigated the crime and prepared the check report (Ext. A-4), memo (Ext. A3) of the cord, list (Ext. A-4) of the ornaments, site plan (Ext. A-5), sample seal (Ext. A-6), letter (Ext. A-7) to the Chief Medical Officer and charge sheet (Ext. A-9). The oral as well as documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. by the trial court in reply to which the accused persons alleged that the evidence adduced against them is false they have wrongly implicated. No evidence in defence is adduced by the accused persons. A-9). The oral as well as documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. by the trial court in reply to which the accused persons alleged that the evidence adduced against them is false they have wrongly implicated. No evidence in defence is adduced by the accused persons. After hearing arguments of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial court found accused Rajendra Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 201 I.P.C., and after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and also to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 I.P.C. The trial court further found accused Bishan Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for five years. However, accused Parwati Devi and Jiwanti Devi, were not found Quilty of the charges framed against them, and both of them were acquitted of charge of offence punishable under Section' 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and that of under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused persons, Rajendra Singh and Bishan Singh, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 03-05-1988, preferred this appeal before Allahabad High Court, in 1988, against their conviction and sentence awarded against them. The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. Meanwhile, appellant Bishan Singh has died and the appeal filed by him, stands abated. 5. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the ante mortem injuries found at the time of post mortem examination by P.W. 3 Dr. Rajesh Chandra Dimri, who prepared post mortem examination report (Ext. A-1) on 24-01-1987 at 2:00 P.M. Following ante mortem injuries were recorded by said Medical Officer on autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Kalawati : 1. Abrasion- 4.5cm x 1.5cm at chin just in front of ligature mark. 2. Ligature mark- well defined ligature mark encircling the neck horizontally and completely situated 4.5cm above the episternal notch. Base of the mark was pale. Margins were red. Internal appearance of injury No.2 :- Blood was extravassated into the subcutaneous tissues and the muscles of the neck. Muscles were lacerated. Right Cornua of the hyoid bone was fractured. 3. Abrasion- 2.5cm x 1.5cm at the back of right ankle. 4. Base of the mark was pale. Margins were red. Internal appearance of injury No.2 :- Blood was extravassated into the subcutaneous tissues and the muscles of the neck. Muscles were lacerated. Right Cornua of the hyoid bone was fractured. 3. Abrasion- 2.5cm x 1.5cm at the back of right ankle. 4. Abrasions at dorsum of left hand's fingers in an area between last and first phalanx. On internal examination, the Medical Officer found the brain congested and there were small blood clots also. The larynx and trachea were found congested and frothy mucous was also present. Both the lungs were found congested and blood clots were also found. On dissection, dark fluid blood was found. The sheath and carotid artery on both sides, were found to be lacerated and contained dark fluid/blood. The tissues were found to be lacerated. In stomach, there was semi digested semi-solid food material. The uterus was found to be gravid and extending upto umbilicus. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, cause of death was asphyxia resulted from strangulation. 6. T(1ere is no direct evidence or eye-witness account of commission of crime by the appellant Rajendra Singh, rather it is a case of circumstantial evidence. As such, it is necessary to see whether the chain of circumstances has been established by the prosecution or not and, whether the chain of circumstances proved, makes out a case that it is only the appellant Rajendra Singh and he alone who has committed crime and none else. Circumstances against the appellant Rajendra Singh, proved on record, are as under: (1) Deceased Kalawati was wife of appellant Rajendra Singh. (This fact is also admitted by the appellant in his reply under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.) (2) A few days before the date of incident when Kalawati failed to come back from the house of her father to the house of her husband, appellant Rajendra Singh, went to his in-laws place and forcibly brought his two years old son, leaving his wife with her parents. (This fact is also admitted by appellant Rajendra Singh in his reply under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.). As such, it appears from the evidence on record that the appellant wanted to get rid of his wife. However, Kalawati, weeping, came back, next day, from her parents' house to the house of her husband Le. appellant. (This fact is also admitted by appellant Rajendra Singh in his reply under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.). As such, it appears from the evidence on record that the appellant wanted to get rid of his wife. However, Kalawati, weeping, came back, next day, from her parents' house to the house of her husband Le. appellant. (3) In the intervening night of 20th /215t January, 1987, Kalawati was in the company and in the custody of her husband (appellant) in his village. . (4) The post mortem examination (Ext.A-1), shows that Kalawati died due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation. (Le. homicidal death). (5) Even after knowing that Kalawati has died homicidal death, her husband (appellant Rajendra Singh), did not give any information to the revenue officer, having police powers.of his Patwari area. (6) P.W. 1 Puran Singh Salal, Patwari of Trinali, has stated on oath, before the court that on information of one Chandan Singh and another person, when he reached at the place where the dead body of Kalawati was found (on 22-01-1987) hanging (though her knee was touching the ground and back resting on a rock), appellant Rajendra Singh and his father Bishan Singh refused to lodge the report even after being asked by Patwari to do so. (7) According to both P.W.1 Puran Singh, Patwari of Trinali and P.W. 5 Narain Singh Mehta, Patwari of Lingurta, not only appellants Rajendra Singh and his father Bishan Singh, refused to lodge the First Information Report but they insisted that they would give report in writing only if they are permitted to cremate the dead body without the post mortem examination. (This fact gets corroboration from the inquest report Ext. A-2). (8) Inquest report (Ext. A-2), which contains the above fact that accused / appellant refused to give any written report of homicidal death of Kalawati and insisted on delivering the body to them after preparation of inquest report. for cremation (without post mortem examination), is signed by the appellant Raiendra Singh. This fact establishes the conduct of the appellant further indicating his involvement in the commission of crime. 7. On behalf of the appellant Rajendra Singh, it is argued by his learned counsel that Kalawati, wife of appellant Rajendra Singh, committed suicide and appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime. This fact establishes the conduct of the appellant further indicating his involvement in the commission of crime. 7. On behalf of the appellant Rajendra Singh, it is argued by his learned counsel that Kalawati, wife of appellant Rajendra Singh, committed suicide and appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime. However, we are unable to accept this argument for the simple reason that there is nothing on record, showing any cause for commission of suicide by Kalawati. Rather oral evidence on record, adduced by P.W. 1 Puran Singh, P.W: 2 Maghan Singh and P.W. 5 Narain Singh, shows that the manner the dead body was projected to have been hanging some 800 mtrs away from the house of the appellant Raiendra Singh, indicates that Kalawati after being murdered was hanged by the appellants Raiendra Singh and Bishan Singh to conceal the fact of commission of crime and to give it a colour of suicidal death. It has come on the record from the statement of above three witnesses that the knee of the deceased was touching the ground and her back was resting on a rock. Not only this the branch of the tree from which her neck was hanging where the dead body was spotted was so weak that it could not have been possible for the deceased to commit suicide by hanging from such a weak branch of a tree. 8. The possibility of suicide not only gets ruled out from the above circumstances mentioned in the preceding para but also from me fact that the knot mark over the neck was not found by the Medical Officer (P.W. 3 Dr. R.C. Dimri). who conducted autopsy on the dead body. According to the Medical Officer, the ligature mark was well defined and complete. After external and internal examination of the dead body. the Medical Officer has given a clear opinion that it is a case of strangulation. 9. Shri Raveendra Singh Bisht, Amicus Curiae, contended before us that the conviction recorded by the trial court is based on presumption and the same is liable to be set aside. On going through the impugned judgment and order, we do not see any force in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae, for the reason that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the court has to draw the inferences from the circumstances proved before it. On going through the impugned judgment and order, we do not see any force in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae, for the reason that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the court has to draw the inferences from the circumstances proved before it. And inferences drawn from the proved circumstances cannot be said to be presumption for conclusions arrived at. 10. 1t is submitted on behalf of the appellant Rajendra Singh that motive of commission of crime on the part of the appellant is not clear. In this connection, it is further submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive cannot be ignored. We do agree with the submission of learned counsel that the motive in the case of circumstantial evidence has its own importance as against the case of direct evidence. But we do not agree with the learned counsel that the motive on the part of the accused / appellant is not shown from the evidence on record. The motive is evident as discussed in point No.2, in foregoing para 6. 11. For the reasons as discussed above, we are in agreement with the trial court that prosecution has been successful in proving the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. against appellant Rajendra Singh. There is neither any error of fact nor that of law in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge. It does not require any interference from this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and conviction of appellant No. 1 Raiendra Singh and sentence awarded against him are maintained. Appellant Rajendra Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. The court concerned shall take him into custody to make him serve out sentence awarded by the trial court. (Appeal of appellant No.2 Bishan Singh, in view of his death during the period of the appeal, stands abated).