JUDGEMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. 1. Appellants Nageshwar Singh alias Pratap Narain Singh (who has described himself as Pratap Narain Sharma also in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and Malti Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2006 are the parents of the sole appellant Srikant Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2006. They were put on trial for committing the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were found guilty of committing the offence of murder by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court, 1st, Nawada, in Sessions Trial No. 82/1999/5 of 2005 and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life by the above noted court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No sentence of fine was imposed by the learned trial Judge while passing the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.5.2006 which is being assailed by the three appellants in the present two appeals. 2. Some of the admitted facts of the case are that Sushma Devi was married to appellant Srikant Singh and the couple had begotten three children-two daughters, who were the eldest and the youngest, and a son-and on the date of occurrence the deceased was residing in the house of the appellants. It is also not disputed that the deceased Sushma Devi had given birth to her third child just a prior to the occurrence and on that occasion she was residing in her parents house and had been brought by her husband to his house in Nawada. It is also not challenged that the death of Sushma Devi occurred. 3. Under the above background of the case, P.W. 2 Deo Narain Prasad Singh, the father of the deceased, gave his fardbeyan at the house of the appellants alleging that he had come to his house from his workplace at about 7 P.M. on 24.9.1998 when his wife, P.W. 5 Indira Devi, stated to him that Sushma had been murdered by her husband and in-laws. P.W. 5 stated to P.W. 2 that she had gathered the information from one of the ladies of the Mohalla that the deceased fell down from the roof and on that information she went to a particular place in Nawada town and found the dead body of Shushma lying in a trekker covered with a cloth. P.W. 5 stated to P.W. 2 that she had gathered the information from one of the ladies of the Mohalla that the deceased fell down from the roof and on that information she went to a particular place in Nawada town and found the dead body of Shushma lying in a trekker covered with a cloth. Appellant Srikant Singh and Nageshwar Singh replied to P.W. 5 on her query that she had fallen down from the roof-top and, as such, there was no need to cry, else, the situation could get worse. P.W. 5 stated to P.W. 2 that when she wanted to have a glance of her daughter, appellants Srikant Singh and Nageshwar Singh did not permit her to do so upon which Indira Devi (P.W. 5) sat in the trekker saying that she would also accompany them but both the appellants, Srikant Singh and Nageshwar Singh, pulled her out of the vehicle and sped away from. 4. P.W. 2 stated that after having learnt the above facts, he contacted some of his neighbours in the Mohalla and went to village Marara with them for enquiring about the truthfulness of the information and when he reached the house of the appellants he found that the dead body of his daughter was lying in the passage of the house of the appellants and it was covered with cloth which was removed by P.W. 2 and thereon he found that deep cut wounds were present on her head, neck and back, appearing caused by sharp cutting weapon. On making enquiry from the persons of neighbourhood, P.W. 2 claimed being told that while the deceased was cooking meals she was assaulted by her husband, appellant Srikant Singh, with . Tangi while the remaining two appellants, i.e. Nageshwar Singh and Malti Devi, caught hold of her. The deceased was mercilessly assaulted with Tangi by appellant Srikant Singh and others and the deceased was murdered. 5. P.W. 2 stated that he had four daughters and Sushma was the eldest among them who had been married to appellant Srikant Singh, whereas his second daughter had been married to a business man. The deceased was mercilessly assaulted with Tangi by appellant Srikant Singh and others and the deceased was murdered. 5. P.W. 2 stated that he had four daughters and Sushma was the eldest among them who had been married to appellant Srikant Singh, whereas his second daughter had been married to a business man. He further stated that Srikant Singh and the deceased had three children-two daughters and one son, the third being born about one month prior to the incident and thereafter appellant Srikant Singh threatened the informant ten days prior to the incident that a daughter again being born, the informant should either get an employment for him or should transfer the house at Nawada to him, else, appellant Srikant Singh would kill the informant (P.W. 2) and his daughter both. It was stated by the informant that the deceased had come to her matrimonial house ten days prior to the incident and on that occasion also appellant Srikant Singh had beaten up the deceased when she stated to P.W. 2 that she would be killed by the appellants as soon as she reached her house. It was, as such, alleged that for the above motive of either not getting an employment or the house transferred to him the incident had occurred. 6. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of P.W. 2, the F.I.R. of the case (Ext. 6) was drawn up and the case was investigated into by S.I. Suryadeo Kumar, P.W. 9, who was also the Officer-in-Charge of Roh Police Station. 7. During the course of investigation, P.W. 9 inspected the place of occurrence which was the house of the appellants and during that course found the dead body lying in the passage of the house. The inquest report (Ext. 7) was prepared in presence of the witnesses. During the further inspection of the inner section of the house, P.W. 9 found a blood stained tangi and that was also seized by preparing seizure memo in presence of the witnesses. The seizure memo has been marked Ext. 4/1. P.W. 9 also found a green colour checked Lungi having stains of blood with two petticoats, also having stains of blood, and seized the same by preparing the seizure memo in presence of the witnesses. The rooms were found freshly washed and the earthen surface of the verandah and Angan were also found freshly cleaned. 4/1. P.W. 9 also found a green colour checked Lungi having stains of blood with two petticoats, also having stains of blood, and seized the same by preparing the seizure memo in presence of the witnesses. The rooms were found freshly washed and the earthen surface of the verandah and Angan were also found freshly cleaned. P.W. 9 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and after recording the statements of the witnesses and finding the case fit for being submitted for trial, sent up the appellants for their trial. As indicated, above, the accused were charged and after conclusion of the trial they were found guilty and sentenced, as indicated in paragraph 1 of the present appeal. 8. The defence of the appellants was of complete innocence. It was suggested to different witnesses, like, P.W. 5, the mother of the deceased and others that no occurrence in the manner as alleged occurred and, in fact, the deceased had fallen down from the roof-top of the house and as such had died. This also appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 2 Deo Narain Prasad Singh, the father of the deceased, and the informant who turned hostile. The further defence is the evidence of two defence witnesses, namely, Dilip Singh and Arun Kumar thai appellant Nageshwar Singh and Srikant Singh were not present at their house as they were witnessing a football match in a field in their own village and there was a hulla that the wife of appellant Srikant Singh had fallen down from the rooftop and thereupon, the D.Ws. and others alongwith the appellants went to the house and found the deceased lying after having fallen from the roof-top and was also found bearing injuries. 9. The prosecution examined a total number of ten witnesses in support of the charge out of whom P.W. 2 Dev Narayan Prasad Singh, the informant, turned hostile and was cross-examined lodged the report at the police Station as may appear from his evidence in paragraph 3. P.W. 4 Ram Sharan Mahto also turned hostile. P.W. 10 Alakh Nandan Chauhan is a witness of formal nature who proved the writings of P.W. 9 on station diary entry no. 371 dated 24.9.1998. P.W. 1 is Dr. Anadi Kumar Manjhi who held the post-mortem examination and prepared the post-mortem examination report, Ext.1. P.W. 4 Ram Sharan Mahto also turned hostile. P.W. 10 Alakh Nandan Chauhan is a witness of formal nature who proved the writings of P.W. 9 on station diary entry no. 371 dated 24.9.1998. P.W. 1 is Dr. Anadi Kumar Manjhi who held the post-mortem examination and prepared the post-mortem examination report, Ext.1. P.W. 3 Sanjeev Parasar was a tenant in the house of the informant and supported the prosecution story as contained in Ext. 4, the F.I.R. Similarly, P.W. 6 Prem Ranjan Prasad also supported the story in the manner as was done by P.W. 3 Sanjeev Parasar. P.W. 7 Sita Ram Prasad is also a witness who claimed accompanying the informant, like, P.W. 4 Ram Sharan Mahto and P.W. 6 Prem Ranjan Prasad to the house of the appellants. He witnessed the seizure of different articles as also the holding of inquest. The most important witness for the prosecution is P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi, who had initially learnt about the incident and informed P.W. 5 Indira Devi, the mother of the deceased and accompanied her to different places in Nawada so as to locating the dead body and also appears seeing it. As indicated above, P.W. 9 S.I. Suryadeo Kumar had investigated the case. After considering the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge passed the judgment and order of conviction, as indicated in the earlier part of the present judgment. 10. Shri Farooq Ahmad Khan and Shri Durgesh Nandan, Advocates, appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, took us through the evidence of each and every witness to submit that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and except suspicion there was no evidence to connect the three appellants with the commission of the offence. It was further contended that there was no circumstance implicating the appellants, except that some injuries were present on the dead body, but again those are without any support from the oral testimony as regards the author of those injuries. The next contention was that there was some evidence of recovery of a Tangi or some blood stained clothes but there is neither any evidence as to what was the dimension of the blade of the Tangi nor there was any evidence as to the clothes belonging to a particular person of the family, least to say of the appellants. The next contention was that there was some evidence of recovery of a Tangi or some blood stained clothes but there is neither any evidence as to what was the dimension of the blade of the Tangi nor there was any evidence as to the clothes belonging to a particular person of the family, least to say of the appellants. The injuries which were found by P.W. 1 could be also possible by a fall from the roof-top on pieces of broken glass and rejected tin cans and in absence of any clinching chain formed by links of circumstances, the prosecution appears failing to prove the charge. Shri Khan also submitted that the innocence of the appelfants was indicated by their conduct of putting the injured Sushma Devi on a trekker and rushing her to Nawada tor better treatment and as soon as they arrived there, they contacted the parents of the deceased so as to informing them about the incident as to how the deceased happened to receive those injuries. It was contended by Shri Khan that the blood stained Lungi and petticoats were not produced. It was contended further that whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is constituted by the witnesses who are interested in the informant and the basic prosecution case has not been proved as the informant himself did not support it. It was contended that the prosecution, as such, has failed in proving the charge. 11. As against the above, Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that, firstly, the Court should make an enquiry as to whether the victim had died at the spot or was still alive while taken to Nawada and submitted that the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 indicated that she was already dead at the place of occurrence. It was contended that the attempt by the appellants in carrying the dead body from their house at village Marara to the township of Nawada was only to create a smoke screen so as to diverting the attention of all concerned including the poiice from the real incident. It was contended that the attempt by the appellants in carrying the dead body from their house at village Marara to the township of Nawada was only to create a smoke screen so as to diverting the attention of all concerned including the poiice from the real incident. It was further contended that it was not a conduct indicating the innocence of the appellants that they were carrying the dead tody rather, it was a conduct, as submitted above, which was an attempt of creating an eye wash and if the Court considers it with all seriousness, that it deserved, it could simply be indicated that the conduct was such as to destroying the presumption of innocence of the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decision reported in 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. 224 (S.C.) as also 2005 S.C.C. (Cri.) 511, Kamesh Panjiar Vs. State of Bihar in support of his above contention. It was contended that the motive for the occurrence was proved from the evidence of P.W. 3 in paragraph .3 and P.W. 5 in paragraph 5 who have stated that appellant Srikant Singh was asking P.W. 2 to either get a job for him or transfer his house in Nawada and further that Sushma used to say that her husband would kill her. 12. As regards the other circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W. 9, the I.O. of the case found the house and verandah freshly cleaned and the dead body was still lying in the passage of the house. Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed reliance also on 2001(4) P.L.J.R. 123(S.C.), Ramgulam Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar and 2008 S.C.C. (Cri.) 109, Gagan Kanaujia Vs. State of Punjab. 13. As regards the contention that the basic prosecution case has not been substantiated because P.W. 2 Deo Narayan Prasad Singh went hostile to the prosecution by not supporting his fardbeyan, the most important aspect of the matter appears missed. P.W. 2 was not the person who had received the information directly either from the appellants or from the lady subsequently examined as P.W. 8. He was probably having the 3rd or 4th hand information from his wife about the death of his daughter. P.W. 2 was not the person who had received the information directly either from the appellants or from the lady subsequently examined as P.W. 8. He was probably having the 3rd or 4th hand information from his wife about the death of his daughter. The reading of the fardbeyan may indicate that the information was of two types-that the deceased had been killed and that initially the wife of P.W. 2, that is, P .W. 5 Indira Devi was told that her daughter had fallen from the toot-top and had been brought to Nawada. It is true that he has stated that he went to village Marra with some of his neighbours, like, P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 7 so as to enquiring about the truthfulness of the information and has stated that he learnt from persons there that his daughter had been killed by her husband and in-laws in the manner as alleged. The persons who narrated about the incident to P.W. 2 were neither named by him in the F.I.R. nor in his evidence, nor the investigating Officer, P.W. 9, appears tracing them out and recording their statements. As such, that part of the story remains in the realm of inadmissible evidence. Even if P.W. 2 would not have narrated the above part of the story of getting information from others, his evidence would be subjected to the same criticism, on the scale of inadmissibility. The whole part of the story except the motive part as told by P.W. 2 appears a 3rd hand or 4th hand information received by him and in all such cases the source of information could be of real worth and value as regards the acceptability of the story put forward by the prosecution. In such a situation, as appears in the present case, i am of the confirmed view that the informant of the case, P.W. 2, if goes hostile or appears not supporting his own case, it does not make much of difference because primary or secondary evidence has to be looked for and tested on the scale of admissibility and reliability. In such a situation, as appears in the present case, i am of the confirmed view that the informant of the case, P.W. 2, if goes hostile or appears not supporting his own case, it does not make much of difference because primary or secondary evidence has to be looked for and tested on the scale of admissibility and reliability. If a court finds it admissible and reliable, then even if the informant is not examined, least to talk of turning hostile like P.W. 2, the Court could go on passing its judgment acting upon the evidence of other witnesses who could come forward to place before the court their side of the story as they perceived it by their senses. 14. There are witnesses who have come forwarded and who could be said to have a deeper knowledge of the facts, constituting the prosecution information, on account of being associated with P.W. 2 in going to village Marara from Nawada so as to gathering the information or on account of being connected with the family as in the case of P.W. 3 Sanjeev Parasar and others who are the tenants living under the same roof with their landlords P.Ws. 2 and 5. Besides, the evidence of P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi was also available to the court for getting the facts of the matter so as to basing its judgment and that evidence is also available to us and we could wade through the testimony of the witnesses except P.W. 2 to examine whether the charges were brought home or not. 15. But it is not that the evidence of P.W. 2 does not give any support to the prosecution story. It is stated by P.W. 2 that he had gone to village Marara. He also states in paragraph 3 that he had given a fardbeyan which was recorded by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, i.e. P.W. 9 of Roh Police Station, which was read over to him and finding it correctly recorded he had signed the statement. This may not be an evidence of the contents of the document Ext. 2 (Fardbeyan), but it could be sufficient evidence of the fact that things were not normal, that something very serious had taken place which had forced P.W. 2 to approach the Police Station for lodging a report. This may not be an evidence of the contents of the document Ext. 2 (Fardbeyan), but it could be sufficient evidence of the fact that things were not normal, that something very serious had taken place which had forced P.W. 2 to approach the Police Station for lodging a report. The evidence of P.W. 2 that his statement was recorded and read over to him and finding it correctly recorded he signed the same could, besides anything, be an evidence of one thing that the report was about the cognizable offence which could have been committed or which could have occurred within the jurisdiction of the Police Station. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept that P.W. 2s evidence was of no worth. It, probably, still remains a good piece of evidence for the court to record a finding that sufficient reasons were there for P.W. 9 to investigate a cognizable offence by collecting relevant materials and P.W. 9 had as such collected sufficient material and on investigation found it a good case for sending up the accused persons. 16. The above finding recorded by me gets further support from further evidence of P.W. 2 in paragraph 6 in which, while justifying his act of not supporting his own case, he was putting an explanation of losing mental balance after finding his daughter dead and as such succumbed to the pressures of P.W. 9 to sign a paper. The evidence in paragraph 6 of P.W. 2 itself could give sufficient indication that it was not a plain paper because the witness has stated that P.W. 9 did not read over the document to him and passed it to him only to put his signature and he accordingly complied. The above inference is further strengthened by his own statement in the same paragraph following the above part of the evidence in court that the document was signed on the asking of P.W. 9 also by Sanjeev Parasar (P.W. 3), Prem Ranjan Prasad (P.W. 6) and Sita Ram Prasad (P.W. 7). The evidence of the case indicates that P.W. 2 was an employee in the Central Bank of India. One may refer to Paragraph 4 of the evidence of Indira Devi, P.W. 5 who happens to be the wife of the informant. The evidence of the case indicates that P.W. 2 was an employee in the Central Bank of India. One may refer to Paragraph 4 of the evidence of Indira Devi, P.W. 5 who happens to be the wife of the informant. He could be assumed to be a literate person, as he appears to be, and as such he was endowed with sufficient intelligence and understanding as to what was the implication of his act. It could never be an act unintentionally committed by him or could not be so account of being asked for by any one, like, P.W. 9. Thus, what appears to me on the analysis of the facts and circumstances appearing from the evidence of P.W. 2 is that P.W. 2 was committing perjury anbd that was apparently clear from his own statement when one reads the same as in paragraphs 3 and 6 of his evidence. The entire evidence was on oath and while in paragraph 3 he stated that he had given the statement to the Officer-in-Charge which was written and read over to him and finding the same correct he signed, he gave another statement completely in conflict with the above contents of paragraph 3 in his evidence in paragraph 6 stating that he had not given any statement. It was a fit case and it continues to be a fit case that the witness P.W. 2 should be prosecuted for perjury. Above all, the evidence of P.W. 2 has still the value of raising an inference, as indicated by me in the earlier part of the present judgment, that there was some cognizable offence committed and that he lodged a report. 17. The evidence of P.W. 2 when considered in tandem with that of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 could also lead to an inference that he and the above witnesses had gone to the Police Station Roh. P.W. 9 states that too. Other P.Ws. state that they had gone to enquire into the truthfulness of the information about Sushmas death. Thus the part of the prosecution story that the informant and others went to Village-Marara and from there to Roh gets established by the evidence of P.W. 2 and others. 18. P.W. 9 states that too. Other P.Ws. state that they had gone to enquire into the truthfulness of the information about Sushmas death. Thus the part of the prosecution story that the informant and others went to Village-Marara and from there to Roh gets established by the evidence of P.W. 2 and others. 18. Now, what were the facts on the basis of which the commission of the above noted cognizable offence by the appellants could be gathered from the evidence of other witnesses, like P.Ws. 5 and 8. P.W. 5, Indira Devi, as indicated above, is the wife of P.W. 2, Deo Narain Prasad Singh, the informant, and she claimed deriving the information about the incident from P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi. The evidence of P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi is that while she was at her house appellant Nageshwar Singh was found there at about 7 P.M. enquiring about the house of P.W. 2 Deo Narain Singh and he stated that his daughter had fallen down from the roof-top and as such he wanted him to be called. P.W. 8 has very honestly stated that the informant Deo Narain Prasad Singh was the son of her husbands sister (Bhagina) and as such she was on visiting terms with the informant and there used to be exchange of invitations between the two families. On the above ground P.W. 8 appears coming out of her house so as to going to the house of P.Ws. 2 and 5 to inform them about the incident and taking P.W. 5 with her, P.W. 8 came again to appellant Nageshwar Singh at Chhai Road but there was none there except the above noted appellant who pointed out to the two ladies that probably the injured had been taken to the hospital. Thereafter, all of them went to the hospital but again there was none there. Appellant Nageshwar Singh stated that probably they had gone to Bimal Babu where also there was none. Appellant Nageshwar Singh thereafter stated that the injured had probably been shifted to Dr. Ramchandra. The two ladies went to the clinic of Dr. Ramchandra but again there were none there and while they were coming back to Chhai Road they found a trekker parked there. The appellants were sitting in the trekker and Sushma was also lying therein. Appellant Nageshwar Singh thereafter stated that the injured had probably been shifted to Dr. Ramchandra. The two ladies went to the clinic of Dr. Ramchandra but again there were none there and while they were coming back to Chhai Road they found a trekker parked there. The appellants were sitting in the trekker and Sushma was also lying therein. The trekker was taken to the hospital where the Doctor declared Sushma dead and stated that the dead body should be immediately removed. The appellants pulled P.W. 5 out of the vehicle and sped away. P.W. 8 has very honestly stated that she learnt that Sushma had been murdered and had not really seen the occurrence. 19. P.W. 8 appears subjected to serious cross-examination so much so that the entire locality where her house and that of P.W. 2 and others were located was asked about. It may be found from paragraph 4 of her cross-examination that it was not that the two ladies had only started in search of the injured, rather, the tenants of the informant had also followed them from one place to other. The group was comprised by the tenants, family member and others. The details of the time as appearing in the cross-examination also do not appear such as to negating the probability of the witness P.W. 8 having accompanied P.W. 5. She further appears acquainted with the entire affairs and development in the family of P.W. 2 and that appears from the statement of the lady from her evidence in cross- examination. Thus, the evidece of P.W. 8 is there to indicate as to what was the initial facts of the case. 20. The above part of the evidence of P.W. 8 is supported by P.W. 5 Indira Devi, the mother of the deceased and wife of P.W. 2 who had stated that she was told by P.W. 8 that her Samadhi and Damad had come and they were calling her as her daughter had fallen down from the roof-top. This is the initial story picked up by P.W. 8 from the mouth of appellant Nageshwar Singh during the course of making the search of the house of P.Ws. 2 and 5. This is the initial story picked up by P.W. 8 from the mouth of appellant Nageshwar Singh during the course of making the search of the house of P.Ws. 2 and 5. The sequence of narration of P.W. 5 is on the same pattern that she and P.W. 8 went to Chhai Road when they met Nageshwar Singh and they did not find the trekker there, whereafter Nageshwar Singh stated that might be that the injured had been taken to Dr. Bimal Babu where also none could be found and then appellant Nageshwar Singh led them to the clinic of Dr. Ramchandra. P.W..5 has stated that appellant Nageshwar Singh stated that they could stay outside the clinic and himseif went inside but did not come back. The ladies then came to Chhai Road where the trekker was found and the appellants were found sitting there alongwith some others. The deceased was lying there and on uncovering the dead body, P.W. 5 found that there were injuries on it. It is stated by P.W. 5 that appellant Nageshwar Singh tied away whereafter P.W. 5 sat inside the trekker and went back to the clinic of Dr. Ramchandra and from there to the hospital, where the Doctor stated to her that her daughter was dead. The appellant Srikant Singh and his mother threatened her to keep mum, else, it could take a bad turn. 21. P.W. 5 has thereafter stated that she informed her husband who came at about 8 P.M. and thereafter her husband went to the Village Marara and lodged a report. P.W. 5 has given a reason for the occurrence and that is the same as indicated by the informant in his fardbeyan. The cross-examination of P.W. 5 in paragraph 9 makes her evidence all the more reliable as her evidence completely tallies with that given by P.W. 8 Fulwa Devi. There is similar details about the presence of the tenants in the house of P.W. 5 when P.W. 8 came to inform her and there is statement also that after having learnt about the incident she started weeping and wailing which attracted some more persons from the neighbourhood and then all of them started for seeing her daughter. This fact stated by P.W. 8 appears completely consistent with the ordinary human conduct not only of P.W. 5 but also of persons who were accompanying her. This fact stated by P.W. 8 appears completely consistent with the ordinary human conduct not only of P.W. 5 but also of persons who were accompanying her. It is most often found that the persons of the neighbourhood out of either curiosity or out of concern for the family, come to such houses where such incidence occurs and do whatever they could for showing solidarity with the bereaved family. 22. The other witnesses, like Sanjeev Parasar (P.W. 3) a tenant in the house of P.Ws. 5 or Prem Ranjan Prasad (P.W. 6) and also Sita Ram Prasad (P.W. 7) have all supported the story as narrated by the witness that they had ail gone to the house of appellants with the informant after learning about the incident, firstly, to make an enquiry and thereafter also to the Police Station for lodging a report. A solitary witness P.W. 4 Ram Sharan Mahto, as noted above, did not support the prosecution story but his cross-examination also supports the story that some of them went to Roh Police Station and Viliage Marara. P.W. 4 in paragraph 3 of his evidence stated that he over stayed in Roh and did not go to the village (Marara). Thus, this line of evidence of the hostile witness (P.W. 4) also indicates that some persons had gone to viliage Marara and also to Roh Poiice Station to lodge the case. There was some incident is also indicated by P.W. 4 in his evidence alongwith the fact that the persons like P.Ws. 2 and 5 were telling every one about the information received by them. 23. Thus, the evidence of the witnesses on record establishes that indeed there was an enquiry by persons from the informants side about the truthfulness of the incident and that enquiry was held by going to village Marara and after being satisfied about the incident, the case was lodged. The evidence on record further indicates that P.W. 9 was contacted by them and after being satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence, the fardbeyan was recorded and the inquest report and the seizure memos were prepared during the course of investigation which documents were signed by various witnesses, like, P.Ws. 3, 6 and 7. The evidence on record further indicates that P.W. 9 was contacted by them and after being satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence, the fardbeyan was recorded and the inquest report and the seizure memos were prepared during the course of investigation which documents were signed by various witnesses, like, P.Ws. 3, 6 and 7. It is also established that the appellants, specially appellant Nageshwar Singh, had given an information, which may appear from the discussions to be made hereinafter, that the deceased had fallen down from the roof and had thus got injured. The above facts and circumstances also establish that the appellants were indeed moving with the dead body so as to convincing the witnesses, like, P.Ws. 2 and 5 and everyone in the surrounding world, that they were good samritan, exhibiting good humanly conduct and behaviour by, firstly, informing the parents of the deceased and then satisfying then, by showing their anxiety of getting the deceased examined by a Doctor, though the whole exercise was a hoax or a mere eye wash. 24. P.W. 1 Dr. Anadi Kumar Manjhi held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sushma Devi and found five ante mortem injuries. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were incised wounds of equal dimensions each measuring 2½" x 1" x soft tissue over right parietal part of skull and third injury was also an incised wound which was measuring 3" x 1" x skull deep and it had out the occipital bone over right occipital region of skull. The fourth again was an incised wound and was also situated on the same part of skull, thats, over the occipital part on the left side. The fifth was an abrasion 4" x ¼" over right scapular region. This injury could be simple in nature otherwise the earlier four injuries described by the witness in his depositi on at serial nos. 1 to 4 could be dangerous to life. This is evident from the dissection part of the evidence of the witness in which he stated that the injuries to brain (probably skull) was cutting the right and left occipital lobe of brain. This finding could be relatable to injuries nos. 3 and 4 which appear from the nature ot their descriptions sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, though the Doctor has not stated anything like that. 25. This finding could be relatable to injuries nos. 3 and 4 which appear from the nature ot their descriptions sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, though the Doctor has not stated anything like that. 25. it is true, as was submitted, that there was no eye witness to the occurrence. This argument has been appreciated in the light of the fact that there is no challenge to the assertion of the prosecution as appearing from the evidence of p,Ws. 3 and 5 that the lady had been brought back to the house of the appellants about ten days prior to the incident. This appears indicated by this fact also that the deceased was brought on the trekker by the appellants, as is established from the evidence on record and her dead body was also found lying in the house of the appellants. 26. The defence of the appellants is top on broken pieces of glass and tin cans so as to getting injured and dying on that account. The injuries which have been recorded by P.W. 1, were found on the head of the lady and on such part of skull, like, occipital and parietal areas as to making it very difficult for any reasonable man to accept the story of fall. If the lady had fallen down head-on, how could those injuries be on the parietal part of the skull and at the same time on the occipital region of the same organ which are never near each other. If there could be a head-on fall, the parietal part could be the most damaged part and the occipital region could never be on head as it is just above the neck joining the head. The other inference which arises from the evidence of P.W. 1, is that the dimension of the injuries indicate as if they had been caused by the weapon of one particular length of about 2½" to 3". Injury nos. 1 and 2 were of 2½" of length whereas those appearing at serial nos. 3 and 4 were of 3" of length. The evidence of P.W. 9 S.I. Survadeo Kumar in paragraph 3 at page 30 of the Paper Book indicates that he had found a blood stained Tangi in the corner of a room. Injury nos. 1 and 2 were of 2½" of length whereas those appearing at serial nos. 3 and 4 were of 3" of length. The evidence of P.W. 9 S.I. Survadeo Kumar in paragraph 3 at page 30 of the Paper Book indicates that he had found a blood stained Tangi in the corner of a room. It was fitted with a handle ot about 1 cubit in length and that the blade of the Tangi was about 2½" in length. The inquest report (Ext. 7) in its column 5 describes the length of all the injuries measuring 2½" and this shows that it could be simple to infer as to what could be the length of the weapon. Besides the Doctor (P.W. 1) in his evidence states that sharp cutting weapon had been used forcefully for causing injuries 3 and 4. It need not be pointed out that since the force was big it could cause injury of bigger dimensions. As such, there is no wonder that the length of injuries 1 and 2 was a bit smaller than that of injury nos. 3 and 4. While cross-examining P.W. 1 the defence did not put any question to him whether the injuries described by him would have been possible by a fall from a roof-top probably Knowing well that it was never the possibility. Thus, I find a great hesitation in accepting the defence version. The other reason for not accepting the defence suggestion also exists on the record of the case. 27. P.W. 9 had inspected the place of occurrence and he has narrated the same in paragraph 3 which runs from pages 30 to 31 of the Paper Book and on a careful perusal of the same it was found that there was a parapet on the roof of the house which was 4 feet in height. Besides, P.W, 9 did not find any piece of broken glass or rejected tin cans anywhere around the house on the ground. If the parapet was 4 feet in height there was no reason that the lady would have fallen down accidentally from the roof so as to getting the injuries. The lady did not appear having any reason nor there is any suggestion that she committed suicide. All the circumstances alongwith the evidence of the P.Ws. rule out the possibility of fall of the lady from the rooftop. 28. The lady did not appear having any reason nor there is any suggestion that she committed suicide. All the circumstances alongwith the evidence of the P.Ws. rule out the possibility of fall of the lady from the rooftop. 28. The evidence on record, specially of P.W. 9 clearly indicates that it was an intentional act of murder. While going around the house, in course of inspecting the place of occurrence, P.W. 9 noted the description of the house as described by him in paragraph 3 of his evidence and also stated as to, during that course, what articles were recovered by him from different parts of the house. I have already indicated about the seizure of a blood stained Tangi from one of the rooms of the house. P.W. 9 found the verandah and Angan of the house freshly cleaned up and washed. He further found, as may appear from the above noted paragraph 3 of his evidence, that blood stained lungi as also two blood stained cotton petticoats were found and those were sent tor serological examination alongwith the blood stained Tangi to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, and the report in that behalf is Ext. 9, which indicated that human blood was found on large area of the objects, like, Tangi, the petticoats and the Iungi. The Iungi and the petticoats were recovered from the staircase and the Tangi was found lying in a corner of a room. This finding and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly indicate that it was an intentional act of assault with Tangi and resultant injury and bleeding which caused the death of the deceased. 29. The contention was that there was no eye witness to the occurrence. This contention has to be scrutinized in the light of the fact that the deceased Sushama Devi was the wife of appellant Srikant Singh and daughter-in-law of the other two appellants. She was in their house. Her dead body was found lying in the passage of the house as appears from the evidence of P.W. 9 in paragraph 3 of his evidence as also from inquest report (Ext. 7) in that behalf. The witnesses have stated, as I have discussed earlier, that the appellants were carrying the dead body on a trekker and had traveled from village Marara to Nawada. 7) in that behalf. The witnesses have stated, as I have discussed earlier, that the appellants were carrying the dead body on a trekker and had traveled from village Marara to Nawada. The purpose of carrying the deceased in a vehicle, to me, does not appear to take her to a Doctor, rather, it was the concerted attempt by the appellants to satisfy the parents of the deceased that they were innocent and were, rather, worried to get her treated so as to save her which attempt was clearly an eye-wash. 30. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden to prove that fact is upon such person. By the very nature of her relationship with the appellants, the deceased was a very important member of the household of the appellants. She happened to have such serious injuries as discussed in the just concluded part of the present judgment. It may be found that those injuries could never have been inflicted by a friendly hand or accidentally as was suggested by the defence. As such, the facts which constituted the incident were very much in the knowledge of the appellants and as such they owed an explanation as to how the deceased happened to receive those serious injuries. They further owed a definite explanation to the prosecution as to who, if not the appellants, were the real persons who had inflicted those injuries so as to causing the death of Sushma. They have merely denied all the circumstances put to them in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This does not appear a case in which the mere denial of an accused could be treated as sufficient explanation of such serious circumstances as indicted above, as there could not be any witness inside the appellants house to witness the crime being committed. The participation of the appellants is indicated by not offering any satisfactory explanation which destroys the presumption of their innocence. That inference destroying the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the seizure of the blood stained Tangi as also the three apparels, like, Iungi and petticoats, indicating participation of the appellants. The participation of the appellants is indicated by not offering any satisfactory explanation which destroys the presumption of their innocence. That inference destroying the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the seizure of the blood stained Tangi as also the three apparels, like, Iungi and petticoats, indicating participation of the appellants. In addition to the above, what has been coming frequently to my mind with quite some good amount of conviction is that it is not that one should be a real participating accused by doing an act, one could also be a privy to the offence and the three appellants appear both participants and privies to the offence of commission of murder. 31. After having discussed the evidence I do not find it relevant to notice the decisions cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as noted by me in the argument part of the present judgment. No two cases could be similar on facts. The facts discussed and the inference drawn thereon are themselves sufficient to hold that the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Judge was proper and correct which does not need any interference. 32. An argument which was relevant to be considered at this stage was as to whether it could be a case under Section 302 or 304 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not have any hesitation in the light of the discussions of the evidence made by me and the circumstances appearing therefrom that it was an intentional act of the appellants with a full knowledge of the consequence thereof which clearly precludes the application of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts of the present case. It was definitely culpable homicide amounting to murder and as such the sentences inflicted upon the appellants appear properly passed. 33. Both, the appeals are dismissed. Appellants Nageshwar Singh and Malti Devi who are on bail, are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence alongwith appellant Srikant Singh who is in custody, as their bonds stand cancelled. C.M.PRASAD, J. 34 I agree.