Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 755 (PNJ)

Sunita v. State Of Haryana

2008-03-25

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SHAM SUNDER

body2008
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant Sunita against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2004, decided on 13.1.2006. By the impugned judgement, out of the three accused, namely, Sunita, Ashok and Seth Pal, only Sunita i.e. the accused/appellant herein, has been convicted for having committed the murder of Sushila, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant Sunita has also been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order dated 20.1.2006, the accused/appellant Sunita has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, she has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The accused/appellant Sunita has additionally, been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, she has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. It was ordered that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution version of the incident is based on the complaint of Isham Singh PW3, made to Inspector Baljinder Singh PW20, on 15.6.2004. As per the complaint, the complainant Isham Singh PW3 had married his daughter Sushila with Shish Pal of village Dadola. From her aforesaid marriage, the complainants daughter Sushila had one son and one daughter. Her son Sagar was aged about three and a half years and her daughter Shivani was aged about one and a half years. As per the complainant Isham Singh PW3, his daughter Sushilas father-in-laws brother Roshan DW2 had three daughters, namely, Sunita (the accused/appellant herein), Santosh and Geeta. The complainant also stated that Roshans daughter Sunita was married to Babu Ram of village Kailash. According to the complainant Isham Singh PW3, his daughter Sushila, the family of her in-laws, as also, Roshan DW2 lived at village Dadola, and since the house of Sushila was attached to the house of Roshan DW2, Sushila used to look after Roshan DW2. Sunita (the accused/appellant herein), Roshans daughter, was apprehensive that her father Roshan DW2 would transfer his property in the name of Sushila. Sunita (the accused/appellant herein), Roshans daughter, was apprehensive that her father Roshan DW2 would transfer his property in the name of Sushila. In view of her aforesaid apprehension, she used to tell Sushila, whenever they met at village Dadola, that she (Sunita) had a right to her fathers (Roshans) property being his daughter. According to the complainant Isham Singh PW3, the deceased Sushila had told this to him, as also, to his wife Kanti (being father and mother of the deceased Sushila) many times. The complainant Isham Singh PW3 also asserted that his daughter Sushila was planning to go to village Sangatehra in U.P. to present gifts to her nephew on 3.1.2004. On the date of the departure of Sushila for Sangatehra, the accused/appellant Sunita daughter of Roshan DW2 was also at village Dadola, and had left the village Dadola alongwith Sushila. Both Sunita and Sushila had their respective children with them. Sushila and her children went missing thereafter. On 9.1.2004, the complainants son-in-law Shish Pal (Sushilas husband) informed the complainant Isham Singh PW3 on telephone, that he had seen the photographs of his missing children Sagar and Shivani in a news paper, and that, his children as per the newspaper report were with the Manav Sewa Sangh, Panipat. Shish Pal also told the complainant Isham Singh PW3 that Sushila was not with her children at Panipat. The complainant Isham Singh PW3 on receiving the aforesaid information, left for village Dadola. By the time, the complainant Isham Singh PW3 reached village Dadola, Shish Pal had brought back his children from Panipat. According to the complainant Isham Singh PW3, on 16.1.2004, he came to know that one lady was burnt in a bitora (stock of cow-dung cakes) at village Kailash. Whereupon, the complainant and his brother-in-law Kashmir Singh PW12, on the same day, went to village Kailash to make enquiries. On making enquiries, he came to know that the aforesaid incident had taken place during the night intervening 3/4.1.2004. In his complaint, the complainant Isham Singh PW3 expressed the suspicion that the accused/appellant Sunita daughter of Roshan DW2, with the assistance of some other persons, had murdered his daughter Sushila for the greed of the property of her father Roshan DW2, and thereafter, had burnt her body in a bitora so as to destroy evidence. In his complaint, the complainant Isham Singh PW3 expressed the suspicion that the accused/appellant Sunita daughter of Roshan DW2, with the assistance of some other persons, had murdered his daughter Sushila for the greed of the property of her father Roshan DW2, and thereafter, had burnt her body in a bitora so as to destroy evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint made by the complainant Isham Singh PW3 to Inspector Baljinder Singh PW20, First Information Report bearing No. 168 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal on 15.6.2004. 3. Independent of the complaint made by the complainant Isham Singh PW3 (referred to in the foregoing paragraph) on 4.1.2004, Munshi Ram of village Kailash made a complaint about someone having burnt the bitora in the fields of Rattan Singh. On investigation, pieces of flesh and bones were recovered from the bitora and taken for examination. Flesh and bones recovered from the bitora were sent to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the PGIMS, Rohtak). The PGIMS, Rohtak in turn, sent the same for DNA profiling to Hyderabad. In the report dated 19.8.2005 Ex.P35, received from the Centre for DNA Fingerprint and Diagnostic, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the CDFD, Hyderabad) which is a Government of India undertaking, it was concluded that the bones and tissues supplied, were those of the biological offspring of Isham Singh (Sushilas father) and Kanti (Sushilas mother). 4. In furtherance of the registration of the complaint by the complainant Isham Singh PW3, Inspector Baljinder Singh PW20 partly investigated the matter. So far as the investigation made in furtherance of the report lodged by Munshi Ram of village Kailash is concerned, the same was conducted by SI Shamsher Singh PW14. As a part of the investigation, SI Shamsher Singh PW14 had taken the blood samples of the complainant Isham Singh PW3 and of his wife Kanti (i.e. the natural parents of the deceased Sushila). On the culmination of the investigation and other police formalities, challan was presented in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, on 5.8.2004. 5. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal by his order dated 14.8.2004, arrived at a prima-facie conclusion that a case was made out against the accused Sunita, Ashok and Seth Pal, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal by his order dated 14.8.2004, arrived at a prima-facie conclusion that a case was made out against the accused Sunita, Ashok and Seth Pal, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal by his order dated 14.8.2004 committed the case to the Court of Session. 6. On 28.8.2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal charged the accused for having intentionally committed the murder of Sushila, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, they were charged under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for having burnt the body of Sushila in a bitora with the intention of saving themselves from punishment. 7. All the accused were then confronted with the charges levelled against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution during the course of the trial, is being summarised hereinafter. The prosecution first, examined Dr. Sant Lal Verma, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal as PW1. In his statement, Dr. Sant Lal Verma PW1 deposed that he had taken blood samples of Smt. Kanti wife of Isham Singh, as well as, of the complainant Isham Singh PW3, in containers provided by the police in the presence of SI Shamsher Singh PW14. He also stated that the containers were labled and sealed. Thumb impressions of both the aforesaid (Kanti and Isham Singh) were taken by the police in the presence of Dr. Sant Lal Verma PW1 on the identification cards, and that, he had affixed his endorsements thereon. Dr. G.L. Dhall, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal was examined as PW2. Dr. G.L. Dhall PW2 was one of the members of the Board constituted to give its opinion in respect of the flesh and bones recovered by the police from the bitora of Rattan Singh from village Kailash. He affirmed that he alongwith Dr. Kuldeep Singh had opined that the bones and flesh were beyond recognition and recommended that they be referred to the PGIMS, Rohtak for expert opinion. The statement of the complainant Isham Singh was recorded as PW3. He affirmed that he alongwith Dr. Kuldeep Singh had opined that the bones and flesh were beyond recognition and recommended that they be referred to the PGIMS, Rohtak for expert opinion. The statement of the complainant Isham Singh was recorded as PW3. In his statement, the complainant Isham Singh PW3 reiterated the factual position narrated by him to the police when he had made his complaint on 15.6.2004. He also stated that he has a son Mange Ram who was blessed with a son about one and a half years ago. At the time of the birth of Mange Rams son, Sushila had visited the family, but had not taken any gift for the new born. About a year ago, his daughter Sushila made a programme to visit the new born for presenting gifts. He further stated that the accused/appellant Sunita contacted his daughter Sushila on telephone and made a programme with her that she would also accompany her to visit the new born. Accordingly, both Sunita and Sushila alongwith their respective children, left village Dadola for going to village Sangatehra in U.P., but Sushila never reached village Sangatehra, which compelled him to eventually register a First Information Report after his search for Sushila had proved to be futile. The statement of Neeraj was recorded as PW 4. He deposed that the accused/appellant Sunita was married to his father Babu Ram after his natural mother Shiksha had died. He also stated that the marriage between the accused/appellant Sunita and his father Babu Ram had taken place about six years ago. He further stated that Babu Ram i.e. the husband of the accused/appellant Sunita had died four years ago, and after about one year of his death, a son was born to the accused/appellant Sunita. He also stated that after the re-marriage of his father Babu Ram, he had started living separately with his grand father. He further stated that on 3.1.2004, while he was returning to village Kailash from Karnal, he saw the accused/appellant Sunita standing with an unknown young lady with two minor children. He also stated that he could not identify that lady, but later came to know that she was Sushila. He also stated that the aforesaid young lady alongwith her children, as well as, the accused/appellant Sunita had boarded the same bus and alighted therefrom at village Kailash. He also stated that he could not identify that lady, but later came to know that she was Sushila. He also stated that the aforesaid young lady alongwith her children, as well as, the accused/appellant Sunita had boarded the same bus and alighted therefrom at village Kailash. On asking the accused/appellant Sunita, he was told that the lady accompanying her, was her bhabhi. On reaching village Kailash, Neeraj PW4 claims to have gone to his house while the accused/appellant Sunita alongwith with the lady and children went to the house of Sunita. In the middle of the night, Neeraj PW4 claims to have woken up for passing urine. For the said purpose, he had gone to the bushes near the firni of the village, and had seen the accused/appellant Sunita going on a scooty with a bori on its foot rest. On the following morning, he claims to have seen the bitora situated in the fields of Rattan Singh burning. Later on, in the day at about 9.00 AM, a crowd had gathered near the burning bitora. Accordingly, Neeraj PW4 in the company of three of his friends had gone to the bitora where the police also reached, and took into possession a lump of burnt flesh etc. from the bitora. He also affirmed that he did not see the two other accused, namely, Ashok and Seth Pal in the company of the accused/appellant Sunita. The statement of Prithi Singh was recorded as PW5. In his statement, Prithi Singh PW5 i.e. the grand father of Neeraj PW4 reiterated the facts narrated about the accused/appellant Sunita in connection with her matrimonial status, as also, the birth of a son to her after the death of her husband. He also asserted that he had seen the deceased Sushila alongwith two children at the house of the accused/appellant Sunita at 5.00 PM on 3.1.2004. He also asserted that at about 8.00/9.00 PM on 3.1.2004, Neeraj PW4 had woken him up, and told him, that he had seen the accused/appellant Sunita going towards the main road with a "bori" on her "scooty". He also affirmed the fact that at about 7.00 AM when he had gone towards the fields to answer the call of nature, he had seen several persons gathered near the burning "bitora" in the fields of Rattan Singh. He also affirmed the fact that at about 7.00 AM when he had gone towards the fields to answer the call of nature, he had seen several persons gathered near the burning "bitora" in the fields of Rattan Singh. He also asserted that the police had also reached there, and had recovered burnt bones and flesh etc., from the "bitora". The statement of Prem Chand was recorded as PW6. In his statement, Prem Chand PW6 asserted, that he had gone to the house of Kashmir Singh PW12 on 18.6.2004, where he had met the accused/appellant Sunita at 10.00 AM. The accused/appellant Sunita in his presence, touched the feet of Kashmir Singh PW12 and sought his help in connection with a mistake committed by her. Prem Chand PW6 asserted that the accused/appellant Sunita had made a confession to Kashmir Singh PW12 that on 2.1.2004, she had gone to village Dadola and had returned to village Kailash with the deceased Sushila and her minor children on 3.1.2004, by bus. She also stated that she mixed some intoxicant in the vegetable of Sushila. After Sushila ate the vegetable, she became unconscious. Whereafter, she alongwith the other two accused Ashok and Seth Pal strangulated Sushila with a rope. Thereafter, her dead body was put in a "bori" and the same was taken to the fields and put on fire by placing it inside a "bitora". According to Prem Chand PW6, the accused/appellant Sunita had accompanied Kashmir Singh PW12, who had produced her before the police. He also stated that he had accompanied Kashmir Singh PW12, as well as, the accused/appellant Sunita to the Police Station Sadar, Karnal on 18.6.2004. He further stated that the accused/appellant Sunita had made a disclosure statement in his presence. Constable Sanjay Kumar was produced by the prosecution as PW7. On 15.6.2004, Constable Sanjay Kumar PW7 had taken photographs of the place of occurrence. He produced the said photographs as Ex.P13 to P15 and their negatives as Ex.P16 to P18. The statement of Constable Joginder Singh was recorded as PW8. He had delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 15.6.2004. The statement of Ram Kumar, Patwari, Halka Kailash, was recorded as PW9. He had prepared the akshajra Ex.P20 with its marginal notes. The prosecution then produced Ram Kumar as PW10. The statement of Constable Joginder Singh was recorded as PW8. He had delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 15.6.2004. The statement of Ram Kumar, Patwari, Halka Kailash, was recorded as PW9. He had prepared the akshajra Ex.P20 with its marginal notes. The prosecution then produced Ram Kumar as PW10. He confirmed that "scooty" bearing Engine No. K-803 HM- 891034 and Chasis No. K03 HF-905048 was purchased by the accused/appellant Sunita on 17.9.2003 from M/s. Green Auto, Karnal, of which he was the manager. The statement of Bateri was recorded as PW11. Bateri is the mother of Shish Pal (husband of the deceased Sushila) and the mother-in-law of the deceased Sushila. She affirmed that on 3.1.2004, she had boarded a bus from the Bus Stand of village Dadola, and further that, the accused/appellant Sunita, as well as, the deceased Sushila and her children had boarded the same bus with her. She further stated that she had alighted from the bus at village Ujha, but the deceased Sushila and the accused/appellant Sunita and their children had continued further ahead. The statement of Kashmir Singh was recorded as PW12. Kashmir Singh PW12 is the real maternal uncle of the deceased Sushila. He asserted that on 18.6.2004, whilst Prem Chand PW6 was at his residence, the accused/appellant Sunita touched his feet and admitted her guilt about having committed the murder of Sushila. He reiterated the factual position disclosed by Prem Chand PW6, in all material particulars. He also stated that he had witnessed the disclosure statement Ex.P12 made by the accused/appellant Sunita. The statement of Prem Kumar was recorded as PW13. He had visited the place of occurrence at village Kailash and prepared the site plan Ex.23 at the instance of the complainant Isham Singh PW3. SI Shamsher Singh was produced as PW14. He recorded his statement in respect of the investigation made by him. Head Constable Surinder Singh appeared as PW15. He affirmed that he was joined in the investigation alongwith Constable Sushma by SI Ramesh Chander PW19. He also affirmed that the "scooty" of the accused/appellant Sunita bearing registration No. HR05N-5805 was recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant Sunita, and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P31, which had been signed by him, as well as, by lady Constable Sushma. The statement of ASI Rajinder Singh was recorded as PW16. He also affirmed that the "scooty" of the accused/appellant Sunita bearing registration No. HR05N-5805 was recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant Sunita, and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P31, which had been signed by him, as well as, by lady Constable Sushma. The statement of ASI Rajinder Singh was recorded as PW16. He stated that he had received two sealed parcels bearing the seal of the doctors besides Rs.20,000/- as fee for getting the same deposited for DNA profiling from the CDFD, Hyderabad. He further stated that he alongwith Head Constable Satbir, had gone to Hyderabad alongwith the samples and fee thereof, and deposited the same for DNA profiling, and obtained a receipt in lieu thereof. The prosecution then produced Head Constable Dalbir Singh as PW17. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P34. D.S. Negi, Technical Examiner, CDFD, Hyderabad, appeared as PW18. He had conducted the DNA examination of the samples sent to Hyderabad. He confirmed the report of the CDFD, Hyderabad, dated 19.8.2005 Ex.P35. SI Ramesh Chand appeared as PW19. He had arrested the accused/appellant Sunita and recorded her disclosure statement Ex.P12. The arrest of the accused/appellant Sunita, according to SI Ramesh Chand PW19, had been facilitated by Kashmir Singh PW12 and Prem Chand PW6. The statement of Inspector Baljinder Singh was recorded as PW20. He had recorded the complaint of Isham Singh PW3 on 15.6.2004. The statement of Dr. Luv Sharma was recorded as PW21. He deposed that he had conducted the postmortem examination on the contents of the card board box, which contained a yellow polythene, wherein were enclosed remnants of tissues and bones. Having examined the contents of the parcel, he had recorded a finding that the remains were those of a female. 9. The statements of the accused Sunita, Ashok and Seth Pal were then recorded on 29.5.2006 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the accused, on being confronted with the incriminating evidence appearing on the record, denied the same. In so far as the accused/appellant Sunita is concerned, she inter-alia, adopted the following stance :- "I am innocent. The statements of the accused Sunita, Ashok and Seth Pal were then recorded on 29.5.2006 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the accused, on being confronted with the incriminating evidence appearing on the record, denied the same. In so far as the accused/appellant Sunita is concerned, she inter-alia, adopted the following stance :- "I am innocent. My husband was employee of HSEB and after his death I applied for a job on compassionate ground which offended my father in law and my step son Neeraj Kumar because my father in law wanted that Neeraj should be absolved in the job in place of me. All pensionary or provident fund of my husband was also given to me by the department as I was the legal heir so it also offended my father in law Prithi and my step son Neeraj. My father-in-law transferred ancestral agricultural land in the name of Bhim Singh, Arjun Singh and Bishan Singh and to Neeraj by way of a release deed ignoring me and my minor son. I challenged that release deed on 1.10.2000 in a civil suit which is pending in the court of Shri Hukam Singh CJ(JD), Karnal. My father-in-law and Neeraj annoyed with me in this regard so they want to fix me in some false case and deposing falsely against me. Shish Pal husband of deceased borrowed one lac rupees from my father Roshan Lal and when my father demanded back that amount, his family members are inimical against him so they are deposing falsely." 10. It is not considered appropriate to refer to the stance adopted by the other two accused as they were acquitted by the trial Court, and further because, the same has not been relied upon during the course of the hearing of the instant appeal by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. The accused produced four witnesses in their defence, namely, Inspector Hari Kailash as DW1, Roshan as DW2, Budh Ram as DW3 and Prem Singh as DW4. Inspector Hari Kailash DW1 merely stated that the complainant Isham Singh PW3 had contacted him at Police Station Sadar, Karnal on 30.1.2004 and informed him that his daughter had been missing from Panipat since 3.1.2004. Roshan, father of the accused/appellant Sunita, appeared as DW2. Inspector Hari Kailash DW1 merely stated that the complainant Isham Singh PW3 had contacted him at Police Station Sadar, Karnal on 30.1.2004 and informed him that his daughter had been missing from Panipat since 3.1.2004. Roshan, father of the accused/appellant Sunita, appeared as DW2. In his statement, he asserted that the deceased Sushila had never rendered any service to him, and further that, he had never promised to transfer his property in her name, or in the name of her husband Shish Pal. He also asserted that his daughter i.e. the accused/appellant Sunita was arrested from village Dadola. The statement of Budh Ram was recorded as DW3. He deposed about a money transaction between the father of the accused/appellant Sunita i.e. Roshan and Prem Singh. He asserted that he had accompanied Prem Singh to the residence of Roshan for the refund of Rs.70,000/- taken on loan by Prem Singh from Roshan. The statement of Prem Singh was recorded as DW4. He affirmed that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from Roshan. He also asserted that he had refunded the loan alongwith interest. 11. The Sessions Judge, Karnal delivered the judgement in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2004, on 13.1.2006. The accused/appellant Sunita was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, the other two accused, namely, Ashok and Seth Pal were acquitted. After having heard the accused/appellant Sunita on the question of sentence, by a separate order dated 20.1.2006, she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, she was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Additionally, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, she was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. It was also ordered that all the substantive sentences awarded to the accused/appellant Sunita would run concurrently. 12. A perusal of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, as well as, the judgement rendered by the Sessions Judge, Karnal reveal, that while convicting the accused/appellant Sunita, reliance was placed on ocular evidence, as well as, expert evidence. It was also ordered that all the substantive sentences awarded to the accused/appellant Sunita would run concurrently. 12. A perusal of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, as well as, the judgement rendered by the Sessions Judge, Karnal reveal, that while convicting the accused/appellant Sunita, reliance was placed on ocular evidence, as well as, expert evidence. In so far as ocular evidence is concerned, the same is circumstantial in nature, inasmuch as, Neeraj PW4, Prithi Singh PW5 and Bateri PW11 had deposed that the deceased Sushila was last seen with the accused/appellant Sunita. Reliance has also been placed on the extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant Sunita to Prem Chand PW6 and Kashmir Singh PW12, wherein she acknowledged that she had committed the murder of Sushila and then burnt her dead body in a "bitora" (stock of cow-dung cakes). In so far as the motive for the crime is concerned, the same emerges from the statement of the complainant Isham Singh PW3, which is supported by a number of other prosecution witnesses to the effect that the accused/appellant Sunita was apprehensive that her father Roshan DW2 would transfer his property to the deceased Sushila on account of the fact that she was serving Roshan DW2, and also on account of the fact, that Roshan DW2 did not have a male offspring. In so far as expert evidence is concerned, the same is in the nature of DNA profiling conducted at the CDFD, Hyderabad wherein the DNA of the flesh and bones recovered from the "bitora" in the fields of Rattan Singh, was compared with the DNA of the blood samples of the parents of the deceased Sushila, namely, the complainant Isham Singh PW3 and his wife Kanti. As per the report, it was confirmed that the flesh and bones belonged to the biological offspring of Isham Singh PW3 (deceased Sushilas father) and Kanti (deceased Sushilas mother). 13. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant Sunita has made a series of short and crisp submissions. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that there are a lot of circumstances, which go to show the improbability of the case set up by the prosecution against the accused/appellant Sunita. All the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused/appellant Sunita are being summarised in the following paragraph. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that there are a lot of circumstances, which go to show the improbability of the case set up by the prosecution against the accused/appellant Sunita. All the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused/appellant Sunita are being summarised in the following paragraph. 14. The first contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that it has not been shown by the prosecution as to how the deceased Sushila and the accused/appellant Sunita reached village Kailash. In this behalf, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that according to the statement of the complainant Isham Singh PW3, the deceased Sushila had left village Dadola to go to village Sangatehra in UP so as to present gifts to her nephew. It is, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has failed to show as to how and why the deceased Sushila changed her mind and went to village Kailash. The second contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that the last seen evidence emerging from the mouth of Neeraj PW4 and Prithi Singh PW5 is wholly unreliable. In this behalf, it is submitted that Neeraj PW4 is the step son of the accused/appellant Sunita and lives separately from her, whereas, Prithi Singh PW5 is her father-in-law, who has a grudge against the accused/appellant Sunita on account of the fact that all the benefits flowing out of the employment of her husband were taken by her and that, her father-in-law Prithi Singh PW5 was inimical to her on that account. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that if the last seen evidence emerging from the statements of Neeraj PW4 and Prithi Singh PW5, is taken out of the prosecution story, the presence of the deceased Sushila at village Kailash cannot be established on the basis of any other evidence. The third contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant in the same context, namely, that it is wholly improbable for a lady in the dead of night, to have taken a dead body on a "scooty" so as to dispose of the same by putting it in the "bitora" and then setting it on fire. The third contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant in the same context, namely, that it is wholly improbable for a lady in the dead of night, to have taken a dead body on a "scooty" so as to dispose of the same by putting it in the "bitora" and then setting it on fire. Additionally, it is submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the intervening night of 3/4.1.2004 and that, at that juncture winter itself is at its peak, and therefore, there is no likelihood of the occurrence having taken place on the lines of the prosecution story. Accordingly, it is contended that it is merely a trumped up case against the accused/appellant Sunita, only account of the conflicting interest between the parties. The fourth contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that the statement of Bateri PW11 is also unreliable. In this behalf, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that Bateri PW11 was the mother-in- law of the deceased Sushila and, therefore, was an interested party and accordingly, should not be relied upon. 15. It is not necessary for us to deal with all the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraph. No one, whatsoever, can dispute the conclusions drawn by the CDFD, Hyderabad, in so far as the DNA profiling conducted at the said centre are concerned. From the statement of D.S. Negi PW18, it has emerged that the bones and flesh recovered from the "bitora" at village Kailash were those of the offspring of the complainant Isham Singh PW3 and his wife Kanti. It is also not a matter of dispute that the complainant Isham Singh PW3 and Kanti were the father and mother respectively, of the deceased Sushila. It is, therefore, very clear that the recovery of the body parts from the burnt "bitora" in village Kailash were those of Sushila and of no one else. It is, therefore, clear that the presence of the deceased Sushila in village Kailash is not a matter of any doubt, whatsoever. It is not the case of the accused/appellant Sunita that Sushila had gone to village Kailash for any purpose. There is no such suggestion to any of the witnesses, who had appeared on behalf of the prosecution. It is, therefore, clear that the presence of the deceased Sushila in village Kailash is not a matter of any doubt, whatsoever. It is not the case of the accused/appellant Sunita that Sushila had gone to village Kailash for any purpose. There is no such suggestion to any of the witnesses, who had appeared on behalf of the prosecution. According to the prosecution story, it was only the accused/appellant Sunita, who was known to the deceased Sushila at village Kailash. The undisputed presence of Sushila at village Kailash renders credence to the statement of Neeraj PW4 and Prithi Singh PW5 as both of them had deposed that they had seen the deceased Sushila in the company of the accused/appellant Sunita on the evening before the burning incident of the "bitora" in village Kailash. It also renders the statement of Bateri PW11, who asserted that she had seen the deceased Sushila and the accused/appellant Sunita boarding the bus together creditworthy. In fact, the son of the accused/appellant Sunita i.e. Neeraj PW4, could not by himself identify the lady in the company of his step mother (the accused/appellant Sunita) when he boarded the bus from Karnal for village Kailash. It is on his (Neeraj PW4) asking that the accused/appellant Sunita disclosed to him that the lady accompanying her was her "bhabhi". In view of the conclusive evidence establishing that the human parts recovered from the "bitora" in village Kailash belonged to the deceased Sushila, all the improbabilities pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant pale into insignificance. The accused/appellant Sunita had adopted the stance that the deceased Sushila had not accompanied her to village Kailash. The contrary has, however, been established by cogent and reliable evidence. Since the deceased Sushila was proved to be with the accused/appellant Sunita on the night before the burning incident of the "bitora" in village Kailash and at the residence of the accused/appellant Sunita, it is apparent that the accused/appellant Sunita had personal knowledge about the events that transpired on the night under reference. The burden squarely rested on the shoulders of the accused/appellant Sunita under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to explain the circumstances under which the body parts of the deceased Sushila came to be recovered from the burning "bitora" at village Kailash. The burden squarely rested on the shoulders of the accused/appellant Sunita under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to explain the circumstances under which the body parts of the deceased Sushila came to be recovered from the burning "bitora" at village Kailash. In the absence of any evidence so as to exculpate herself, the natural inference is liable to be drawn against the accused/appellant Sunita i.e., that she had murdered Sushila and then in order to save herself, put the dead body of Sushila in the "bitora" in the fields of Rattan Singh in village Kailash and put it on fire. There is no other manner to look at the evidence produced by the prosecution. In view of the above, we find no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant (as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraph). 16. Yet another submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, namely, that there was no question of the accused/appellant Sunita going to Kashmir Singh PW12 so as to make an extra judicial confession to him. In this behalf, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that Kashmir Singh PW12 is, in fact, a relation of the complainant party. It is pointed out from the statement of Kashmir Singh PW12 that he was the real maternal uncle of the deceased Sushila. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that in the absence of extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant Sunita to Kashmir Singh PW12, there is no other evidence connecting her to the crime. The submission made by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, is wholly misconceived. It would be pertinent to mention, that the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused/appellant Sunita to Kashmir Singh PW12 had been made in the presence of Prem Chand PW6. Prem Chand PW6 is not connected with the family of either of the parties. According to the statement of Kashmir Singh PW12, Prem Chand PW6 is the Lamberdar of village Musepur. We find no justification for Prem Chand PW6 to make a statement against the accused/appellant Sunita. It also needs to be noticed that the arrest of the accused/appellant Sunita was facilitated by Kashmir Singh PW12. According to the statement of Kashmir Singh PW12, Prem Chand PW6 is the Lamberdar of village Musepur. We find no justification for Prem Chand PW6 to make a statement against the accused/appellant Sunita. It also needs to be noticed that the arrest of the accused/appellant Sunita was facilitated by Kashmir Singh PW12. This could not have been done by him unless the accused/appellant Sunita had actually gone to him. It can also not be forgotten that after the extra judicial confession was made by the accused/appellant Sunita to Kashmir Singh PW12 in the presence of Prem Chand PW6, Prem Chand had also accompanied Kashmir Singh PW12, as also, the accused/appellant Sunita, to the police station. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that the accused/appellant Sunita had gone to the witnesses referred to hereinabove, and that, thereupon they had produced her before the police. It would, however, be pertinent to mention, that the guilt of the accused/appellant Sunita stands established on the basis of last seen evidence produced by the prosecution through Neeraj PW4, Prithi Singh PW5 and Bateri PW11, coupled with the DNA profiling report submitted by the CDFD, Hyderabad, establishing the recovery of the body parts of the deceased Sushila from the burning "bitora" at village Kailash and the extra judicial confession made by her confessing her guilt. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. 17. The last contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant was that the motive theory propounded by the complainant Isham Singh PW3, as well as, the other prosecution witnesses, falls flat on its face, in view of the statement of Roshan DW2. According to the complainant Isham Singh PW3, the accused/appellant Sunita was inimical towards the deceased Sushila on account of the fact that she feared her father would transfer his property to Sushila on account of the fact that Sushila used to take care of him, as also, on account of the fact that he did not have a male offspring. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, as per the statement of Roshan DW2 i.e. the father of the accused/appellant Sunita, Sushila never took care of him, and further that he had never promised to transfer his property to her. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, as per the statement of Roshan DW2 i.e. the father of the accused/appellant Sunita, Sushila never took care of him, and further that he had never promised to transfer his property to her. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, whilst his own daughter was an accused in a murder case, Roshan DW2 can be expected to go to any limit to save her. His statement on the issue in hand, therefore, cannot be given much weightage. Be that as it may, proof of motive is not a pre-requisite before an accused is held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish that the murder of Sushila was committed by the accused/appellant Sunita. The prosecution version of the occurrence is established by the presence of parts of the dead body of the deceased Sushila in the village of the accused/appellant Sunita, namely, at village Kailash. There is no explanation, whatsoever, as to how and why the deceased Sushila had gone to village Kailash in the company of the accused/appellant Sunita. The circumstantial evidence is in the nature of last seen evidence at the hands of Bateri PW11, who had seen the deceased Sushila in the company of the accused/appellant Sunita when the two had left village Dadola. Then there is a statement of Neeraj PW4 i.e. the step son of the accused/appellant Sunita who boarded the same bus in which the deceased Sushila and the accused/appellant Sunita were travelling, and all of them got off at village Kailash, further depicts that it was the accused/appellant Sunita in whose company the deceased Sushila had gone to village Kailash. Furthermore, the statement of Prithi Singh PW5 reveals that he saw the deceased Sushila at the house of the accused/appellant Sunita on the evening of the date of occurrence i.e. on 3.1.2004. There is, therefore, compelling evidence establishing the fact that the two ladies i.e. the deceased Sushila and the accused/appellant Sunita were together just before the occurrence. In addition to the aforesaid, the extra judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, cannot be over-looked, specially because the aforesaid extra judicial confession was made by the accused/appellant Sunita in the presence of two persons, namely, Kashmir Singh PW12 and Prem Chand PW6. In addition to the aforesaid, the extra judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, cannot be over-looked, specially because the aforesaid extra judicial confession was made by the accused/appellant Sunita in the presence of two persons, namely, Kashmir Singh PW12 and Prem Chand PW6. Though Kashmir Singh PW12 is closely related to the complainant party, Prem Chand PW6 is a wholly independent witness and there was no reason for him to have made a statement against the accused/appellant Sunita, specially when the same was likely to have extremely serious consequences. 18. While dealing with the last contention, we have also summarised the entire prosecution case which clearly establishes the guilt of the accused/appellant Sunita. No other submission besides the ones noticed hereinabove, was advanced on behalf of the accused/appellant. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. We, accordingly, affirm the order of conviction, as well as, sentence passed by the trial Court.