JUDGMENT : RAKESH SAKSENA, J. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5-7-2002 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 45/2000 convicting him under section 302 Indian Penal Code and section 201 Indian Penal Code (on two counts) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years (on two counts) with fine of Rs.500/-, on each count respectively. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that appellant had married Dashoda Bai, the deceased. She was his second wife. After marriage, for about 1-2 years she lived with appellant and gave birth to a child Ashish, but after that she went back to her parents' house and started living with them. On 24-12-1999, appellant came to the house of her parents and took deceased and her son Ashish, aged about 3 years, on a motorcycle to Narsinghpur for showing her to some doctor, as she had pain in her ears. In the night, appellant came back and informed to her parents that after visiting the doctor he and deceased had gone to see a picture. After that he asked deceased and his son to sit on the culvert near a temple and went to fetch medicine. When he returned he did not find them there. He searched them for about 2 hours but failed to locate them. Appellant then, in the morning, lodged a missing report at police station. Parents of deceased viz. Jiji Bai (PW-4) and Vijay Singh (PW-7) suspected that appellant might have killed the deceased and her son as in the past he had also committed murder of his uncle and further that he was annoyed from the fact that his father had executed an agreement of three acres of agricultural land in favour of deceased. 3. On the basis of suspicion expressed by the parents of deceased, when police interrogated appellant, he disclosed that he committed murder of his wife and son by strangulating them and buried their bodies in the embankment of his Tukiya Wala field. On the said information, a memorandum was recorded and in the presence of witnesses and Executive Magistrate Ajay Pathak (PW-3) the dead bodies were dug out and recovered from the field. On the said information, a memorandum was recorded and in the presence of witnesses and Executive Magistrate Ajay Pathak (PW-3) the dead bodies were dug out and recovered from the field. Broken bangles and a five rupee note of the deceased was also seized from the spot, marg intimation Ex.P/25 and first information report Ex.P/24 was also recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet under sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code was filed against him in the Court. 4. Since in the memorandum of information, appellant had disclosed that he committed murder of deceased persons with the help of Kammu Nai, he was also made accused in the case and charge-sheet against him was also filed in his absence, but during the pendency of the case, Kammu Nai committed suicide, therefore, the case against him was closed. 5. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. As per his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, on 24-12-1999 on the request of mother of Dashoda Bai, he took Dashoda Bai to doctor for the treatment of her ears. He took her to Dr. D. Kumar (PW-9) who prescribed some medicines. Thereafter, as wished by Dashoda Bai, he went to see picture with her. After the show, he asked his wife and child to sit in the Madhia in front of the talkies and went to bring medicine. After about 15-20 minutes when he came back he did not find them at the place where they were sitting. He searched them at all places but when they were not found he informed about their missing to the parents of Dashoda Bai and thereafter in the morning at about 10-11:00 a.m. he lodged a report with the police about their missing. On 27-12-1999 when he came to Narsinghpur police arrested him and informed that Kammu Nai had killed his wife and child and buried them in the field. Police also informed him that a false case was being concocted against him on the insistence of his father-in-law and brother-in-law. According to him, police people demanded money from him for exonerating him. In the said statement, appellant also stated that there were illicit relations between deceased and Kammu Nai. 6. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Appellant also examined Tarvar Singh as a defence witness. 7. According to him, police people demanded money from him for exonerating him. In the said statement, appellant also stated that there were illicit relations between deceased and Kammu Nai. 6. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Appellant also examined Tarvar Singh as a defence witness. 7. It is to be noted that initially appellant was charged under section 303, Indian Penal Code also but the trial Court in view of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Mitthu vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473 , dropped the said charge. 8. There was no direct evidence in the case. Prosecution, therefore, proceeded on the basis of circumstantial evidence i.e. (i) motive (ii) evidence of appellant being last seen with the deceased (iii) recovery of dead bodies of deceased persons on the information given by appellant and (iv) the medical evidence. 9. Learned trial Judge, relying on the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, held the appellant guilty under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code and convicted him accordingly. Aggrieved by his conviction, appellant has filed the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was not reliable. The evidence of last seen together was of the family members of deceased, who were inimical to him. The recovery of dead bodies of deceased persons at the instance of appellant was concocted. There was no reason or motive for the appellant to have killed his wife and son. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was reliable and was sufficient to establish the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant. He justified and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully. 12. It has not been disputed that both the deceased persons viz. Dashoda Bai and Ashish died a homicidal death. Prithviraj Singh (PW-1), the brother of Dashoda Bai, stated that on the information given by appellant, dead bodies of Dashoda Bai and Ashish were recovered from his field. It is thus established that Dashoda and Ashish had died and their dead bodies were recovered from his field. Dashoda Bai and Ashish died a homicidal death. Prithviraj Singh (PW-1), the brother of Dashoda Bai, stated that on the information given by appellant, dead bodies of Dashoda Bai and Ashish were recovered from his field. It is thus established that Dashoda and Ashish had died and their dead bodies were recovered from his field. After recovery of the dead bodies, inquest memorandum Ex.P/4 and P/5 were prepared by Sub Inspector H. P. Singh (PW-14) and the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. 13. Dr. S. K. Nema (PW-8), Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Narsinghpur conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ashish on 28-12-1999 at the spot. According to him, it was a body of male child emanating mild foul smell. Moist soil was present over all the exposed parts of face, hands etc. Tongue was protruding out and was clinched between teeth. Blood stained froth was coming out from both nostrils and mouth. Skin cuticle was peeled of in front and side of middle neck. Underlying dermis was ecchymosed. On internal examination, he found subcutaneous extravasation of blood around and over thyroid cartilage and sides of the neck and lower part of nape of neck muscles. In his opinion, the cause of death of Ashish was asphyxia as a result of throttling. Duration of death was between 72-96 hours before the post-mortem examination. 14. Dr. S. K. Nema, on the post-mortem examination of body of Dashoda Bai on 28-12-1999, found her eye balls protuberant. Tongue protruded out and clinched between teeth. Blood stained thick froth coming out from her both nostrils and mouth. Blood stained fluid was present in her both external ears. He also noted sub conjunctival haemorrhagic spots. Cuticle (skin) was peeled below both angles of mandible and front of neck. Ecchymosis was present over thyroid region and adjoining region and nape of neck. Abdomen was protuberant due to gravid uterus. On internal examination, he found subcutaneous extravasation of blood in subcutaneous tissue around and over thyroid cartilage. Muscles were lacerated and extravasation of blood was seen in that area. Mucosa of the trachea under the marks as described above was congested. In his opinion, the cause of death of Dashoda Bai was asphyxia as a result of throttling. Duration of death was between 72-96 hours from the post-mortem examination. Muscles were lacerated and extravasation of blood was seen in that area. Mucosa of the trachea under the marks as described above was congested. In his opinion, the cause of death of Dashoda Bai was asphyxia as a result of throttling. Duration of death was between 72-96 hours from the post-mortem examination. Post-mortem examination reports Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21 in that regard were written and signed by him. 15. From the aforesaid evidence, it is established beyond doubt that deceased persons Dashoda Bai and Ashish had died a homicidal death. 16. Another circumstance sought to be proved by the prosecution is that of deceased persons being last seen together with the appellant. This piece of evidence has not been agitated by the appellant himself. Even according to appellant, as stated by him in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, on 24-12-1999, he had taken away Dashoda Bai and Ashish for consultation with the doctor in respect of the ailment of Dashoda Bai in her ears. He admitted that after visiting doctor and viewing cinema, he made both the deceased persons sit at the Madhia in front of talkies and went to fetch medicine. According to him, when he returned after about 15-20 minutes, he did not find both of them. Despite search in the vicinity and village he could not trace them out and therefore he informed to police, brother of deceased, and also lodged a missing report at police station. This fact is further corroborated from the evidence of Prithviraj Singh (PW-1), Jiji Bai (PW-4) and Vijay Singh (PW-7) respectively, brother, mother and father of deceased Dashoda Bai. They categorically stated that Dashoda Bai, who, with her child, was living at their house for last 2-3 years, was taken away by the appellant on 24-12-1999 for visiting a doctor. Dr. D. Kumar (PW-9) also stated that on 24-12-1999 Dashoda Bai had visited him in respect of ailment of her ears, at his house. He had prescribed some medicine to her vide prescription Ex.P/22. Thus, it has been amply proved that both the deceased persons were with the appellant till late night and thereafter they were never seen alive. In that regard, a missing report was also got recorded by the accused at police station Narsinghpur but the same was not produced in the case. Thus, it has been amply proved that both the deceased persons were with the appellant till late night and thereafter they were never seen alive. In that regard, a missing report was also got recorded by the accused at police station Narsinghpur but the same was not produced in the case. However, Arvind Dahake (PW-13), the investigating officer, admitted that on 25-12-1999 appellant had lodged a report in respect of missing of his wife. This report was recorded by Moharrir Sarika Pandey. 17. The next important circumstance against the appellant is that when he was interrogated he disclosed that with the help of Kammu Nai he strangulated and killed child Ashish and wife Dashoda Bai and buried their dead bodies in the Medh of his Tukiya Wala field. This disclosure by the appellant was recorded under memorandum Ex.P/1 by Investigating Officer Arvind Dahake (PW-13). In consequence of the admissible part of the said information, dead bodies of deceased persons were recovered from the Medh of the field of appellant. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the memorandum Ex.P/1 recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act did not bear the signatures of the appellant, therefore, it was doubtful. It was also argued that since the fact about the presence of dead bodies in the field was mentioned in marg intimation Ex.P/25 which was recorded earlier, the disclosure memo was not reliable. No doubt ordinarily it is expected from the Investigating Officer that whenever an incriminating fact is disclosed by the accused, he should obtain the signatures of the accused on the memorandum recorded in that regard, but it cannot be held to be an essential, legal or statutory requirement. It has been observed by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram, AIR 1999 SC 1776 that "the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence, we cannot find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signatures of the accused in Exs. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence, we cannot find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signatures of the accused in Exs. P/3 and P/4 seizure memo would vitiate the evidence regarding recovery of the axes." Apart from it, memorandum Ex.P/1 was recorded in the presence of Prithviraj Singh (PW-1) and Devi Singh (PW-2). Learned counsel contended that these witnesses were relatives of deceased, therefore, their evidence was not reliable. Devi Singh (PW-2) denied that he was relative of Prithviraj, the brother of deceased Dashoda Bai. Prithviraj and Devi Singh categorically stated that appellant in their presence disclosed that he buried the dead bodies of Dashoda Bai and Ashish in the Medh of his field and the memorandum Ex.P/1 was recorded in this regard. It is not disputed that Prithviraj Singh is the real brother of deceased Dashoda Bai, but merely on that ground his evidence cannot be discarded. Apex Court in Sanjay alias Kaka vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR 2001 SC 979 in the similar circumstances observed "We find no substance in the submission of the learned defence counsel that as no independent witnesses were associated with the recoveries, a doubt is created in the prosecution version. Satish Khanna (P.W.22) is the natural witness being brother of deceased to be present during the investigation when the accused are stated to have made the statements within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act. Otherwise also there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the IO Harbans Singh (P.W.25)." 19. The evidence of Prithviraj and Devi Singh find support from the evidence of Investigating Officer Arvind Dahake (PW-13) who categorically stated that on a minute interrogation appellant disclosed that the dead bodies of deceased persons were lying buried in Tukiya Wala field. PW13 further stated that when the parents of deceased expressed their suspicion on appellant, he interrogated accused and recorded memorandum Ex.P/1 and thereafter he recorded marg report Ex.P/25. Trial Court after a close appraisal of the evidence in this regard found that the marg intimation and the first information report Ex.P/24 were recorded after the disclosure memorandum Ex.P/1 was recorded. We find no fault with the finding recorded by the trial Court. 20. Trial Court after a close appraisal of the evidence in this regard found that the marg intimation and the first information report Ex.P/24 were recorded after the disclosure memorandum Ex.P/1 was recorded. We find no fault with the finding recorded by the trial Court. 20. It appears from the evidence of Investigating Officer Arvind Dahake (PW-13) that after recording first information report Ex.P/24 he was put on duty in Municipal Elections, therefore, he handed over case diary to Sub Inspector H.P. Singh (PW-14) for further investigation. 21. H. P. Singh (PW-14) deposed that he obtained permission from Sub Divisional Magistrate for digging out the dead bodies of deceased persons. He along with doctor and Executive Magistrate Ajay Pathak went at the place shown by accused and got it dug by sweeper Rakesh (PW-10). On excavation, dead bodies of Dashoda Bai and Ashish were recovered, which were identified by Prithviraj, the brother of deceased Dashoda. Memorandum Ex.P/2 was drawn and inquest was conducted. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, however, he remained firm. The evidence of H. P. Singh (PW-14) finds corroboration from the evidence of Ajay Pathak (PW-13), the Executive Magistrate, Narsinghpur. He categorically stated that on the direction of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narsinghpur he went with the police for digging out the dead bodies. The staff of Municipality also accompanied him. He stated that appellant pointed out the place from where the dead bodies were recovered. In our opinion, from the above evidence, it has been amply established that the dead bodies of deceased Dashoda Bai and Ashish were recovered at the instance of appellant. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 110 , contended that merely on the basis of circumstances that deceased was last seen alive in the company of appellant and the dead body of deceased was recovered at the instance of appellant, it cannot be held that appellant was the author of the murder of deceased person. In our opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable from that of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni's case (supra) wherein the dead body of deceased was found near the residential portion of the appellant and he was last seen alive in the company of appellant. In our opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable from that of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni's case (supra) wherein the dead body of deceased was found near the residential portion of the appellant and he was last seen alive in the company of appellant. In the instant case, deceased persons were the wife and son of appellant and their dead bodies were recovered buried in the field of appellant on the information furnished by him under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the ratio of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni's case (supra) does not render any help to appellant. 23. From the statement of accused under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, it is revealed that he suspected that Dashoda Bai had illicit relations with Kammu Nai. He stated that on the day when he was going with Dashoda Bai to Narsinghpur for her treatment, Kammu Nai met them on way. He stopped them and took Dashoda Bai to some distance and talked to her in secret manner. According to him, Kammu Nai had illicit relations with Dashoda Bai. 24. In the cross-examination of Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Jiji Bai (PW-4) suggestions were made by the defence that deceased had illicit relations with Kammu Nai, she had gone with him and that it was he who killed Dashoda and Ashish. Thus, it can be safely inferred that appellant suspected the character and chastity of his wife Dashoda. 25. On a close appraisal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it stands proved that : (i) Appellant suspected fidelity and chastity of his wife Dashoda; (ii) Appellant was last seen together with deceased persons who were living away from him at her parents' house since last 2 years; (iii) The dead bodies of deceased persons were recovered at the instance of appellant and were found buried in the Medh of the field of accused; (iv) Death of both the deceased persons was proved to be homicidal in nature. They died due to asphyxia because of throttling. 26. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. They died due to asphyxia because of throttling. 26. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Appellant, in the instant case, merely furnished an explanation that within 15 minutes when he returned after getting medicine from the shop, his wife and son were missing from the public place i.e. from the culvert near the temple and were not traceable despite search being made by him in the night. It appears that he offered a false explanation about the missing of deceased persons who were ultimately found dead and their dead bodies buried in his field. By these circumstances, in our opinion, various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence stood clearly established by the prosecution evidence and ruled out any reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the appellant. It also stood established that with a view to screen the commission of offence, appellant concealed the dead bodies under the earth. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the trial Court committed no error in holding that it was appellant who committed murder of Dashoda Bai and Ashish and with a view to screen himself from the legal punishment buried the dead bodies in the field and in convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. 28. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant under sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and the sentences awarded to him by the trial Court are affirmed. 29. Appeal fails and is dismissed.