Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7/2/1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in sessions Trial No. 56/96 convicting appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI of four months, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2), Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2. ) IN brief, the case of prosecution is that Suniya Bai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) got married to one Gopal several years prior to the date of incident. After the marriage, deceased and her husband Gopal were residing in village Maharajpur. Appellant is also residing in the same village. It is said that illicit relations between appellant and the deceased started developing, as a result of which for several times altercation took place between the deceased and her husband. Thereafter husband of the deceased namely Gopal migrated to village Anjaniya and started living there. However, deceased was residing in the house of her parents in village maharajpur. ( 3. ) IT is the further case of prosecution that appellant was restraining and was not allowing the deceased to go and to live in the company of her husband Gopal in village Anjaniya and was giving threat to her that in case she would go to village Anjaniya and live with her husband, she may face dire consequences. ( 4. ) PRIOR to the date of incident (incident took place on 25/1/1996), gopal, husband of the deceased, came to village Maharajpur and stayed there for some days. Thereafter, deceased gave her consent and was ready to go with her husband and it was settled between them that on 28th january, 1996 both of them will go to village Anjaniya. Thereafter husband of the deceased Gopal went back to his village Anjaniya. This fact any how came into the knowledge of appellant. ( 5. ) ON the fateful day i. e. 25/1/1996, the deceased in the afternoon by saying that she is going to Mandla came out from her house and proceeded for Mandla. Since she happened to knit the sweater, as a result of which she did go to the house of Sushila Bai. ( 5. ) ON the fateful day i. e. 25/1/1996, the deceased in the afternoon by saying that she is going to Mandla came out from her house and proceeded for Mandla. Since she happened to knit the sweater, as a result of which she did go to the house of Sushila Bai. Thereafter on the way appellant met and forcibly took her in his house and killed her by throttling her neck. The dead body of the deceased was kept in his house and the Mangalsutra which she was wearing, was carried away by the appellant and was kept in the house of her sister Savita Bai. According to the prosecution, there is extra judicial confession on the part of appellant which he made before his mother Kamla Bai and one Narmada Prasad. The mother of appellant namely Kamla Bai along with Sumarulal saw the dead body of the deceased and thereafter went to lodge the report to the Police Station where Marg report was registered. The factum of the death of the deceased was also intimated to her parents, as a result of which they also arrived at the spot and saw the dead body and also saw the injuries on the neck of the deceased. It is said that Mangalsutra was purchased by the father of the deceased and the deceased happened to wear the same but the same was missing from her neck. ( 6. ) THE investigating agency after completion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet in the committal Court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. ( 7. ) LEARNED trial Judge, on the basis of the averments made in the charge sheet, framed charge punishable under Section 302, IPC against present appellant which he denied and requested for trial. ( 8. ) IN order to prove the charge prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and placed Ex. P/1 to P/17, the documents on record. The defence of accused is of maladroit implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. However in support of his defence, he did not choose to examine any witness. ( 9. P/1 to P/17, the documents on record. The defence of accused is of maladroit implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. However in support of his defence, he did not choose to examine any witness. ( 9. ) LEARNED trial Judge, after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to hold that appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and, eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned herein above. ( 10. ) IN this manner, present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. ( 11. ) THE contention of Shri Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, is that there is no direct evidence in the present case and the prosecution has based its case solely on the circumstantial evidence. According to learned counsel, if the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the law in that regard is well settled that the prosecution is obliged to collect each and every relevant piece of evidence in order to form a complete chain unerringly pointing out the guilt towards the accused. The contention of learned counsel is that in the present case there is no clinching evidence and the links are not so well connected in order to form a complete chain, therefore, learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant. It has also been put forth by him that the dead body is said to have been seized from the house of appellants mother namely Kamla Bai but there is no evidence in order to hold that appellant was living with his mother. It has also been argued by him that prosecution has not taken pains to collect the evidence of last seen which could have been very material piece of evidence. The alleged recovery of Mangalsutra, at the instance of appellant, is also not proved and, therefore, since there is no evidence against the appellant and the evidence so collected by the prosecution does not form a complete chain in order to point out the guilt towards the appellant, therefore, this appeal be allowed by acquitting the appellant. ( 12. ) ON the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, Dy. Advocate General, argued in support of the impugned judgment. ( 13. ( 12. ) ON the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, Dy. Advocate General, argued in support of the impugned judgment. ( 13. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 14. ) SINCE prosecution has based its case solely on circumstantial evidence, therefore, prosecution is obliged to produce all the relevant piece of evidence forming a complete chain unerringly pointing out the guilt towards appellant. Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, we shall now examine the testimony of each and every witnesses one by one. ( 15. ) P. W. 1-PARMULAL is the father of the deceased. This witness has stated that deceased got married to Gopal. Thereafter, Gopal migrated to village Anjaniya and the deceased started earning the money by knitting the clothes and was living in village Maharajpur along with her parents. According to this witness, when he was informed that her daughter has been murdered and mother of the appellant has lodged the report that the dead body is lying in her house, he went to Police Station, Samaru and thereafter along with police persons came to the house of appellant where he found the dead body of the deceased and there was a ligature mark on her neck. This witness has also proved Panchnama of the dead body ex. P/1 and stated that the same has been prepared in his presence and it bears his signatures. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when he saw the dead body of the deceased, he did not find Mangalsutra in the neck. He has further stated in his cross-examination that in the room where the dead body was lying, nearby to it there is Balwadi. Further in para-10 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that on 14/1/1996 on the occasion of Sankranti festival his son-in-law Gopal came to his house and compromised with the deceased and it was settled between them that the deceased will go to village Anjaniya where his son-in-law Gopal resides. The suggestion put to him that appellant purchased the Mangalsutra, has been firmly denied by this witness. On scanning the evidence of this witness, nothing has been carved out in order to hold that this witness is a liar and his evidence is not worth reliable. The suggestion put to him that appellant purchased the Mangalsutra, has been firmly denied by this witness. On scanning the evidence of this witness, nothing has been carved out in order to hold that this witness is a liar and his evidence is not worth reliable. On the contrary his evidence is found to be clear, cogent and trustworthy. This witness was cross-examined at length but he remained embedded in his version despite there being a roving cross-examination over him. Unerringly the inference which could be drawn from his testimony is that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of appellant. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel that the house in which the dead body of the deceased was found is of appellant is not proved, as that house is of his mother and there is no evidence that appellant was residing with her mother. In para-4 of his testimony, it has been specifically stated by him that when he went to the house of the appellant, he found the dead body there. In this para the word accused has been used by this witness which would mean that the house where the dead body was found was of appellant. No suggestion is put to this witness that appellant is not residing in that house and is residing at some other place. Hence, it is proved that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of appellant. ( 16. ) P. W. 2-ASHA Chelani is the lady who was assigning the work of knit to the deceased. Though this witness is a hostile witness but it has been stated by her that on the fateful day i. e. 25/1/1996 in the afternoon deceased came to her house in between 3 to 3. 30 p. m. This has also come in her cross-examination that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of Kamla Bai who is mother of appellant. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is proved that the deceased was seen alive on the fateful day in between 3 to 3. 30 p. m. and her dead body was found in the house of Kamla Bai who is the mother of appellant. ( 17. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is proved that the deceased was seen alive on the fateful day in between 3 to 3. 30 p. m. and her dead body was found in the house of Kamla Bai who is the mother of appellant. ( 17. ) P. W. 3-SUMARULAL is the another important witness who has said that on the fateful day when he was going to evacuate and reached nearby the house of Kamla Bai (mother of appellant), she asked this witness to open the door and to see inside the room. Thereafter this witness opened the door and saw the legs of a lady, as a result of which he told Kamla Bai to report the matter in the Police Station. Thereafter this witness as well as kamla Bai went to lodge the report and came back along with police persons to the place of occurrence. This witness has further stated that police persons opened the door and found the dead body of the deceased inside the room. This witness has also proved the first information report Ex. P/4 lodged by him. Thus, from the statement of this witness also it is proved that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of appellant. ( 18. ) P. W. 4-CHAMPA Bai is the mother of the deceased and is neighbour of appellant. According to this witness, dead body of the deceased was found in the house of appellant but Mangalsutra; was missing from her neck. She has specifically stated that Mangalsutra was purchased by her and was given to the deceased. In para-6 of her statement, she has specifically stated that there was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. This witness thereafter concealed the factum of illicit relations between appellant and deceased, as a result of which she was declared hostile on that point. However, in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, this witness specifically stated that 3-4 days prior to the date of incident, appellant came to her house and gave threat to the deceased that she should not go to village Anjaniya otherwise she would be murdered. This witness was also confronted by her case diary statement Ex. P/6 in which we find that it was so stated. This witness was also confronted by her case diary statement Ex. P/6 in which we find that it was so stated. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is proved that appellant came 3-4 days prior to the incident and gave threat to the deceased not to go to village Anjaniya, otherwise she would be murdered. The presence of ligature mark on the neck of the deceased has also been proved by this witness. ( 19. ) P. W. 5-SAVITA Bai is the sister of the appellant and is a hostile witness and has denied that police arrived at Jabalpur at her house and seized mangalsutra. ( 20. ) P. W. 6-NARMADA Prasad, P. W. 7-Sushila Bai, P. W. 8-Mahendra and p. W. 10-Baba @ Munna are the hostile witnesses and have not supported the case of prosecution. ( 21. ) P. W. 9-GOPAL is the husband of the deceased and has proved that deceased told that appellant happened to threat her that if she would go to village Anjaniya, she would be killed. This witness has also proved that deceased happened to wear Mangalsutra. Hence, the threat to kill the deceased by appellant is also proved from the evidence of this witness. ( 22. ) P. W. 12-DR. A. K. Shrivastava is the Autopsy Surgeon who, after conducting the post-mortem opined that the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. This witness has proved his post-mortem report Ex. P/14. There is no effective cross-examination on the statement of autopsy Surgeon. Thus, it is proved that deceased had died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. ( 23. ) LAST witness is P. W. 13-K. B. Singh, S. I. , who is the Investigating officer. Apart from proving the other relevant documents, this witness has also proved the recovery of Mangalsutra Ex. P/11. On going through the statement of the investigating officer, we find that at the instance of memorandum statement of appellant Ex. P/12, Mangalsutra was seized vide ex. P/11 which bears his signatures and the same was seized from the house of sister of appellant. Though there is specific averment of investigating officer in examination-in-chief in respect to the recovery of Mangalsutra at the instance of appellant from his sisters house, but no cross-examination was made on this material point on behalf of defence and, thus, recovery of mangalsutra is also proved. Though there is specific averment of investigating officer in examination-in-chief in respect to the recovery of Mangalsutra at the instance of appellant from his sisters house, but no cross-examination was made on this material point on behalf of defence and, thus, recovery of mangalsutra is also proved. Merely because P. W. 10-Baba @ Munna and p. W. 11-Abdul Jabbar who are witnesses of seizure memo of Mangalsutra, have turned hostile and have not proved the recovery of Mangalsutra from the house of appellants sister, would not be a ground to hold that recovery of Mangalsutra cannot be proved from the statement of investigating officer p. W. 13-K. B. Singh. The defence counsel has not put even a single question to investigating officer who had proved the recovery and, therefore, his testimony in respect to recovery remains unchallenged. It cannot be disputed and there is no law as such that recovery cannot be proved from the evidence of Investigating Officer. Thus, according to us, recovery of mangalsutra at the instance of appellant is also proved. ( 24. ) FOR the reasons stated herein above, we find that following are the proved material circumstances forming a complete chain pointing out the guilt towards appellant, they are : " (i) the dead body of the deceased was found from the house of appellant and this has been proved from the statement of P. W. 1-Parmulal, P. W. 2-Asha Chelani, p. W. 3-Sumarulal and P. W. 4-Champa Bai; (ii) the deceased was found alive between 3 to 3. 30 p. m. and this fact is proved from the statement of P. W. 2-Asha Chelani; (iii) prior to the date of incident when appellant came to know that the deceased is ready to go and would start living with her husband at village anjaniya, he gave threat to her and this has been proved by P. W. 4-Champa Bai and P. W. 9-Gopal; and (iv) there is recovery of Mangalsutra at the instance of appellant from the house of his sister and this has also been proved by the investigating officer p. W. 13-K. B. Singh. ( 25. ( 25. ) APART from the above said strong circumstances unerringly pointing out the guilt towards appellant, there is one more incriminating circumstance that appellant soon after the incident was absconding from the village and ultimately he was found and was arrested on 28/1/1996 and, therefore, by the conduct of appellant also, which is also an important link and one of the important circumstance in order to hold that appellant has committed the offence. The Supreme Court in the case of Sukhvinder singh and others V. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152 , has held that 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 successfully 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 successfully 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-examination of the prosecution witnesses. All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the accused definitely and unerringly point towards the guilt of accused appellant and taken cumulatively from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused appellant and none else. ( 26. ) THE decision of Sukhvinder Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the present factual scenario because in the present case also the dead body was recovered from the house of appellant and the recovery of Mangalsutra at the instance of appellant is also proved. ( 26. ) THE decision of Sukhvinder Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the present factual scenario because in the present case also the dead body was recovered from the house of appellant and the recovery of Mangalsutra at the instance of appellant is also proved. These two strongest circumstances coupled with the suspicious conduct of the appellant, unerringly point out the guilt twoard the appellant and if these circumstances are taken into consideration cumulatively, forms a complete chain and there is no escape of appellant from any corner. Another decision on the point is Usman mian and others V. State of Bihar, (2004) 10 ;scc 786. In this case also the dead body of wife was found in the house of the husband and the husband wanted to hurriedly bury the dead body, in those circumstances also it was held that there are the strongest links in order to form a complete chain pointing out the guilt of accused. Yet there is another decision on the point where the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of appellant it was held that this was one of the most reliable and strong circumstantial evidence pointing out the guilt towards the accused (see Geetha V. State of Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 3475 ). ( 27. ) JUDGING from all the angles the above said strong circumstances, if connected together, form a complete chain unerringly pointing out the guilt towards the appellant. ( 28. ) WE could not find any fault in the judgment of learned trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and, therefore, no option is left with us except to uphold the conviction by extending our stamp of approval to the reasonings assigned by learned trial Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and passing the sentence. ( 29. ) RESULTANTLY, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.