JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) 1. Appellants Devendra Kumar Singh, Ravindra Nath Singh and Satendra Nath Singh have assailed judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13th September 1990 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 9/85/38/88 arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No. 106/86 whereby and whereunder they have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 364/34, 302/34 IPC and though no separate sentence was passed under Section 364/34 IPC all of them have been directed to undergo R.I. for life under Sections 302/34 IPC. 2. Most. Darshi Devi filed a written report on 06.11.83 at about 7:30 A.M. disclosing therein that in the night of 05.11.1983 at about 10 P.M. her agnate Devendra Kumar Singh, Ravindra Singh and Shailendra Singh forcibly took away her Sautin, Saro Devi while her daughter’s son, Krishna Mohan Singh had gone to Bhagalpur to do pairvi in a pending case. She being a widow, had informed Mukhiya and villagers including Chaukidar through whom the aforesaid written report was transmitted to the police. 3. First of all, on the basis of aforesaid written information, Sanha Entry No. 89/83 (dated 6.11.83) was endorsed but subsequently thereof, as it disclosed cognizable offence a substantial case was registered on the same day at about 3:00 P.M. and investigation was taken up and after concluding the same charge-sheet was submitted and after taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 364 as well as 302/34 of the IPC, since the offence happens to be exclusively triable by court of sessions, the same was committed whereupon the trial had commenced and concluded leading to impugned judgment giving rise to this appeal. 4. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as examination of DW is that the whole allegation happens to be palpably false. It has further been asserted that deceased, Saro Devi was residing alongwith the accused persons and on the fateful day, she fell down and on account thereof, she was taken to the Doctor, Bijay Kumar Gupta where she was admitted and during course of treatment she died. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the findings in the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned lower court had acted in a mechanical manner without appreciating the materials available on the record in its right perspective. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the findings in the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned lower court had acted in a mechanical manner without appreciating the materials available on the record in its right perspective. The first leg of the argument happens to be over status of PW 3 the informant because of the fact that as per submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, Saro Devi was residing with the accused persons in their house away from the house of informant, Darshi Devi. Therefore, the claim of the informant to be an eyewitness to the occurrence to the extent of taking away Saro Devi the deceased forcibly by the appellants/accused is not at all acceptable. Then, it has been submitted that all the material witnesses who have been examined in this case are inter-related and hostile to the accused persons in the background of the fact that victim Saro Devi had gifted her property to the appellants/accused on account of which they have filed Title Suit and as such, their evidence being interested, partisan, inimical and adverse to the interest of appellants/accused is fit to be rejected. It has further been submitted that by examining DW-1, Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta as well as exhibiting the medical certificate issued by him, natural death of Saro Devi on account of her old age has been properly explained and thus the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is unsustainable both on fact and in law. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. while supporting the findings in the impugned judgment and meeting with the submission raised on behalf of the appellants has explained that all the PWs had categorically stated that Darshi Devi (informant) was residing in the old house along with Saro Devi, deceased which was also shared by the appellants/accused and as such her being eyewitness can not be ruled out. She had further submitted that there happens to be categorical statement of other witnesses regarding lifting of Saro Devi by the accused persons and thus when the motive for the aforesaid occurrence is itself explained by the appellant-accused themselves being the pendency of Title Suit filed by the deceased, Saro Devi along with Darshi Devi and her daughters wherein deceased, Saro Devi had also deposed adverse to the interest of appellants her being done to death by the appellants was also fully established. In this regard she has also explained that although, the appellants/accused got favourable judgment from the learned lower court but when the same was pending consideration under Title Appeal filed by the informant and her other family members the removal of the deceased from the scene was a well calculated game plan to claim the entire property of the deceased. She has also submitted the defence of the appellants of the natural death of the deceased was fully exposed in view of inconsistency in between findings of postmortem report as against medical certificate (Ext-C) read with evidence of DW-1. On these pleas, it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P that the findings recorded by the learned lower court happens to be legal, just and proper and thus fit to be confirmed by this Court. 7. In order to prove its case prosecution had examined altogether 13 PWs out of whom PW-1 Krishna Mohan Singh, PW-2 Prabha Devi, PW-3 Darsi Devi, PW-4 Singheshwar Mandal, PW-5 Adhiklal Singh, PW-6 Damodar Mandal, PW-7 Upendra Pd. Singh, PW-8, Satish Prasad @ Chhedi Pd. Singh, PW-9, Mathura Prasad Singh, 10, Gorelal Yadav, 11, Babulal Turi, 12, Dr. Devendra Prasad, PW-13, Nagendra Pd. Singh. Side by side, prosecution has also exhibited Ext-1, Inquest report, Ext-2, Postmortem report, Ext-3, Original Sanha Entry No. 89/83 (dated 6.11.83), Ext-4, Formal FIR, Ext-5, C.C of order dated 30.04.1987, Ext-6, Notice. The defence had also examined one DW, Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta and had exhibited Ext-A, Photo copy of medical report, Ext-B, Written statement, Ext-C, Medical certificate, Ext-D, C.C. of deposition of Jagdeo Mandal in Title Suit No. 17/82. 8. The defence had also examined one DW, Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta and had exhibited Ext-A, Photo copy of medical report, Ext-B, Written statement, Ext-C, Medical certificate, Ext-D, C.C. of deposition of Jagdeo Mandal in Title Suit No. 17/82. 8. Although the basic concept of criminal jurisprudence had put an obligation upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt but so far instant case is concerned, it has certain peculiarity in light of the fact that there happens to be admission on the part of the defence which exonerates the prosecution to toil in its endeavours in proving its case to some extent. The relevance of such admission of the defence will be dealt with at an appropriate place in this judgment but before doing so the evidence of prosecution has to be examined. 9. PW-12 happens to be Dr.Devendra Prasad who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased, Saro Devi. The postmortem was conducted on 07.11.1983 at 3:45 P.M. and following ante-mortem injuries were found:- There was extensive bruise over front of chest. There was blood collection underneath the skin and musculature of chest wall. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th rib was found fractured on left side in the clavicular line. The 3rd and 4th rib was found fractured on the right side near sternum. The chest cavity contained liquid blood, left lung was found torn in the middle and lacerated. The right lung was lacerated in middle. Opinion:- Death has been caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury noted above. The injury has been caused by some hard and blunt object. Time lapsed since death - about 24 hours. 10. During cross-examination the Doctor PW 12 had deposed that these injuries may be possible by fall in the courtyard from any higher place or stairs. The Doctor further opined that in ordinary course, the death may no occur only due to fracture of 3rd, 4th, and 5th rib. However on perusal of the post mortem report it is borne out that the death on account of aforesaid ante-mortem injury has remained uncontroverted because of the fact that it was not only the fracture of rib rather on account thereof having left lung torn in the middle and lacerated as well as having the right lung also lacerated. Therefore, death of deceased by exercise of external force happens to be beyond controversy. 11. Therefore, death of deceased by exercise of external force happens to be beyond controversy. 11. PW-1, is Krishna Mohan Singh. His evidence on the point of occurrence admittedly is of no use on account of his absence at that place on the fateful night. He, on this score, appears to be hearsay witness. He during his examination-in-chief had shown the inter se relationship along with conduct of the accused wherein they succeeded in getting the documents in their favour by Saro Devi. He also deposed that he along with his maternal grandmother, deceased, his wife along with accused persons were residing in the same house. Then, he had said that he had gone to attend a case which was pending before Collector, Bhagalpur leaving his wife, children and maternal grandmother. On 07.11.1983 when he came back, he could come to know that accused persons had forcibly taken away Saro (Ajnaso) Devi on 05.11.1983 and further Ajnaso Devi is dead and her body is lying in the clinic of Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta (DW-1) at Sangrampur, whereafter he had informed the police and police came over there and seized the dead body. During cross-examination, he had clearly stated that after death of his maternal grandfather his both maternal grandmothers had partitioned their land. He had also stated Ajnaso Devi had executed the gift deed in favour of wife of appellant Devendra and a Title Suit for its being revoked was filed where in he had lost. At para-13, he had said that it is false to say that Ajnaso Devi was suffering from asthma. He had further said that when he reached at the clinic of Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta, he found dead body of his maternal grandmother and save and except the compounder, none was present over there. On his query, the compounder had disclosed to him that she was brought in the night of 06.11.1983 in unconscious condition whereafter she had died. In para-15, he had said that he was informed by Mahendra Singh at Sangrampur regarding forcibly taking away of Ajnaso Devi by accused persons and at that time, he was not aware with the fact that Ajnaso had already died and in fact when he had reached his house only then his own maternal grandmother had disclosed that dead body of Ajnaso Devi was lying in the clinic of Dr. Gupta. Gupta. In para-16 had said that all of them were still residing in the same house. In para-18, he had denied the suggestion that deceased had died of a natural death after falling from the staircase. He had further denied that there was cordial relation in between deceased and accused. 12. PW-2 happens to be Prabha Devi, wife of PW-1, Krishna Mohan Singh. She had deposed that her husband resides at Darha, Mamhar(maternal place) of her husband and they are looking after Nani, Darsi Devi. She had further stated that there was a Sautin of Darsi Devi namely, Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi and all of them used to reside in the same house. She had deposed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence only female folk were present on account of absence of her husband who had gone to Bhagalpur and all of a sudden, Ajnaso cried at about 10.00 P.M. and when she came out from room she had seen appellants Satyendra, Devendra and Ravindra taking away Ajnaso and despite her protest forbidding them to do so they did not listen and took her away. She had further disclosed that there was a lantern burning at the verandah as well as in the room. Then, she had also said that she had gone to Pauri (ancestral house) to inform her father-in-law (Sasur) and returned back at 2:00 P.M. and Ajnaso, till then, had not returned. During cross-examination in para-5 she had said that she came to know on Monday regarding death of Ajnaso Devi. She had further disclosed that she had not given any statement before police but then, she had also said that she did not remember the exact date and had gone to deny that during her statement before the police, she had stated about death of Ajnaso. In para-7 she had had stated that she came to know that her maternal grandmother (Ajnaso Devi) died in the clinic of Dr. Gupta at Sangrampur and many persons had gone over there. In para-9 she had said that after being awoken when she came out from her room in her verandah, she had seen the whole occurrence wherein the accused persons were dragging her maternal grandmother at that point of time and that they had not lifted her in lap. Gupta at Sangrampur and many persons had gone over there. In para-9 she had said that after being awoken when she came out from her room in her verandah, she had seen the whole occurrence wherein the accused persons were dragging her maternal grandmother at that point of time and that they had not lifted her in lap. According to her one lantern was burning at verandah the other was lighting in the room of her maternal grandmother. Further, she had said that she had not disclosed about the aforesaid occurrence before the police as she had failed to mention it. 13. PW-3, Darsi Devi happens to be informant. She in her examination-in-chief had said that Ajnaso @ Saro Devi was her elder Sautin and was residing with her and that Krishna Mohan Singh (PW-1) was her daughter’s son who too was residing in with them. On the alleged date and time of occurrence while she was sleeping at verandah, Ajnaso Devi was sleeping inside the room along with wife of Krishna Mohan Singh, while Krishana Mohan had gone to Bhagalpur. She had also said that she had heard some sound on which she awoke from her sleep and had seen Devendra, Ravindra and Satyendra dragging Ajnoso and taking her away in the lantern that was burning in verandan. Ajnaso had raised alarm and when she inquired from them as to where they were taking her away, over which they had threatened her that if she would raise alarm she will be murdered. Thereafter, they took away Ajnaso. She had informed the Mukhiya and narrated about the occurrence on which he had searched for Choukidar but could not meet him at that time. On the following morning, she had sent Chaukidar to P.S. with a written report which was scribed by Chheda on her dictation an on which she had also put her impression of her right thumb. Whereafter the Police came and took her statement. On Monday, she came to know with Ajnaso had died in the clinic of Dr. Gupta. In cross-examination, she had admitted that she had lost the case in the lower court which she along with others had filed for revocation of deed of gift executed by Ajnaso in favour of Savitri Devi but its appeal was pending before the court of District Judge. She had further disclosed that Ajnaso was residing with her. Gupta. In cross-examination, she had admitted that she had lost the case in the lower court which she along with others had filed for revocation of deed of gift executed by Ajnaso in favour of Savitri Devi but its appeal was pending before the court of District Judge. She had further disclosed that Ajnaso was residing with her. On account of deed of gift executed by Ajnaso she had filed Title Suit. Further, she had admitted that she had not mentioned in written report that Krishna Mohan was residing along with her. She had also reiterated that the lantern was burning while Ajnaso was raising alarm. Then in para-7, she had said that on the following day, she had informed the police. In para-9, she had denied that she was residing in her new house. In para-10, she had disclosed that she had not followed the accused persons because it was night. In para-11, she had stated that she had not gone to see the dead body of Ajnaso in the clinic of Dr.Gupta. and the dead body was not brought to the house. According to her she came to know on Monday that Ajnaso had died. 14. PW-4 is Singeshwar Mandal. He had said that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was irrigating his field, he had seen appellants Devendra, Ravindra and Satyendra in the light of lantern and torch taking away Ajnaso in the eastern direction at about 10:00 P.M. and Ajnaso was asking from them as to where they were taking her away. In para-3 he had also said that they had caught hold of her hands and while appellant Satyendra had caught hold of her left hand, appellant Ravindra had caught hold of her right hand and she was going on foot. According to PW 4 Ajnaso had not inquired from appellants as to where they were taking her away. On the following morning, PW 4 had disclosed this incident to Kanu Mandal, Gopi and Kapildeo etc. while Chhotelal was along with him. In para-5, PW 4 had disclosed that Krishna Mohan (PW 1) was residing in new building along with other family members for the last 4 to 5 years while Asjnaso was residing with accused persons in the old building. The fact that Ajnaso was carried to dispensary of Dr. Gupta. while Chhotelal was along with him. In para-5, PW 4 had disclosed that Krishna Mohan (PW 1) was residing in new building along with other family members for the last 4 to 5 years while Asjnaso was residing with accused persons in the old building. The fact that Ajnaso was carried to dispensary of Dr. Gupta. came to be known to PW 4 on Monday whereafter he had gone to see the dead body of Ajnaso in the night of Saturday/Sunday. 15. PW-5 happens to be Adhik Lal Mukhia of Hathigarha Gram Panchayat. He had stated that in the night of 05.11.83, Darsi, younger maternal grandmother of Krishna Mohan came to her and disclosed that appellants Devendra, Ravindra and Satyendra forcibly took away her elder Sautin. He had also disclosed that he had searched Chaukidar but could not meet him and only on the following next morning, Chaukidar had gone to P.S. after handing over of written report. The Police had thereafter having arrived in village had recorded his statement. PW 5 had claimed that he could not come to know of whereabout of Ajnaso till Sunday and only on Monday, he came to know that Ajnaso had died at the clinic of Dr.Gupta at Sangrampur. Then he had disclosed that at the time of occurrence Krishna Mohan was residing in the old house along with his family members as well as both maternal grandmother and his another house was occupied by his father and brother. In para-5 he had disclosed that the new building was in the name of Krishana Mohan. He had also stated about his deposition in Title Suit No. 17/82 contested between Darsi and Ajnaso. He had further disclosed that daughter of his brother is married to Krishna Mohan and Fateh Mandal happens to be his uncle and there was criminal litigation in between Fateh Mandal and accused persons. PW 5 he had disclosed that he had not recorded the statement of Darsi Devi nor had he inquired about Ajnaso on his own. He had also stated that he had not gone to the dispensary of Dr. Gupta and in fact came to know regarding presence of dead body at the clinic of Dr. Gupta at 8:00 A.M. on the next day. 16. He had also stated that he had not gone to the dispensary of Dr. Gupta and in fact came to know regarding presence of dead body at the clinic of Dr. Gupta at 8:00 A.M. on the next day. 16. PW-6, Damodar Mandal had deposed that on 5.11.83 at about 10:00 P.M. while he was irrigating his field lying at northern Bahiar along with Biranchi Mandal, Jitendra Mandal, Bhupendra Mandal and others, all of them had seen Ajnaso in the light of lanter and torch was being taken away by the Devendra, Ravindra and Satyendra towards northern side and Ajnaso was inquiring from them as to where they were taking her away. During cross-examination he said that he had go no knowledge as with regard to taking away of Ajnaso to the Clinic of Dr. Gupta nor he had gone to the clinic of Dr. Gupta. He had further stated that Ajnaso was residing with Krishna Mohan and even the accused persons were also residing in the same building. Though PW 6 had admitted that land of accused was adjacent to his land but had denied to have any dispute on that score. 17. PW-7, Upendra Pd. Singh had deposed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence he was irrigating his field lying at northern Bahiar along with Damodar, Biranchi and others and he had seen Devendra, Ravindra and Satyendra in the light of lantern and torch Ajnaso being taken away while she was asking them to leave her. In cross-examination, he had admitted that accused persons were his step brothers but had denied as with regard to pendency of cases amongst them in consolidation court. In para-6 he had disclosed that he had seen Ajnaso from the distance of 25 to 30 hands but he did not make enquiry from the accused persons as to where they were taking her away and that they were taking her away by holding her in their lap. In para-7 he had said that even later on he did not inquire as to where they had taken Ajnaso and on Monday he came to know that she had died in the clinic of Dr. Bijay Gupta. 18. PW-8, Satish Prasad @ Chhedi Pd. Singh had simply exhibited application written by him on the dictation of Darsi Devi. During cross-examination, he had admitted that was father-in-law of brother of Krishna Mohan. 19. Bijay Gupta. 18. PW-8, Satish Prasad @ Chhedi Pd. Singh had simply exhibited application written by him on the dictation of Darsi Devi. During cross-examination, he had admitted that was father-in-law of brother of Krishna Mohan. 19. PW-9, had simply exhibited his signature as well as signature of Hirday Narayan Mandal over inquest report prepared by the I.O. on 07.11.83 in carbon process. During cross-examination, he had admitted dead body was lying at the clinic of Dr. Gupta at Sangrampur. He further admitted that he was not aware regarding cause of death. 20. PW-10, had deposed that he was compounder of Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta and on 6.11.83 at about 11:00 P.M. Devendra, Satyendra and one another man came with an old lady whereafter he had called the doctor who came and treated her but the old lady died in the night itself. He had further identified the accused in dock. In cross-examination he had disclosed that the name of deceased as per prescription happens to be Ajnaso Devi. Further, he shown his ignorance regarding genuineness of certificate issued by the Doctor but nonetheless, exhibited the same. He had also disclosed that he was not on duty on 3.11.83 as well as 05.11.83 and on 8.11.83 but had claimed to be present in clinic in the night of 6/7-11-1983 as also on the next day i.e. 7.11.1983. 21. PW-11 happens to be Chaukidar who during his examination in chief had resiled from his earlier statement given to police and thus was declared hostile. From his evidence it is, however, evident that on the fateful night itself he had gone to the house of informant where she had disclosed that Ajnaso had fell down from stair and on following morning Mukhiya had given paper containing written report to him asking him to go to Sangrampur P.S. and that he had also gone to clinic of Dr. Gupta where Ajnaso was being treated by Doctor and was still alive. 22. PW-13 happens to be the I.O.. Gupta where Ajnaso was being treated by Doctor and was still alive. 22. PW-13 happens to be the I.O.. He had deposed that on 06.11.83 at about 7:30 A.M. the Chaukidar had handed over written report of Darsi Devi on the basis of which Sanha Entry 89 dated 01.11.83 was registered by him and after going through the Sanha as he had found that case of kidnapping under Section 364 IPC was made out, he had subsequently registered F.I.R. and had taken up investigation in course of which he had reached at the place of occurrence at 10:00 P.M. and had taken statement of the witnesses as also inspected the place of occurrence which was the house of informant wherein the northern side room was claimed to be occupied by Ajnaso. He took statement of other witnesses, inquired about Ajnaso but could not locate her and on 07.11.83, Krishna Mohan came and had disclosed to him that dead body of Ajnaso was lying at the clinic of Dr.Bijay Gupta whereafter, he along with Krishna Mohan had gone over there and had prepared inquest report in presence of witnesses as also sent the dead body for postmortem and recorded statement of witnesses. He had also stated that he had received postmortem report, conducted raid and then on account of his transfer he had handed over charge on 18.05.84. The statement of hostile witness PW-11 was confronted to him and he had reiterated the same in court. In cross-examination at para-10 his attention was drawn towards previous statement of Prabha Devi and in para-11 he said that he took statement of Dr. Bijay Gupta but had not recorded statement of the compounder. He had admitted that he did not inspect relevant registers of the clinic. 23. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, this much is evident that the dead body of Ajnaso was found on 07.11.83 at the clinic of Dr. Bijay Gupta. Bijay Gupta but had not recorded statement of the compounder. He had admitted that he did not inspect relevant registers of the clinic. 23. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, this much is evident that the dead body of Ajnaso was found on 07.11.83 at the clinic of Dr. Bijay Gupta. Although, by way of cross-examination the defence had tried to suggest that this false case has been launched at the behest of Mukhia in connivance with other witnesses in the background of having the deceased Ajnaso executed deed of gift in favour of accused and for that only Title Suit was being fought wherein the prosecution party had lost the game, but from the evidence of the witnesses, it is evident that they had seen the appellants taking away Ajnaso and that part has not been demolished even during their cross-examination. 24. In this background if the prosecution evidence is appreciated in its right perspective, it is found that the story of taking away of Ajnaso by the appellants has seriously been not challenged even in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Appellants, Devendra Kumar Singh had virtually admitted:- (a) Ajnaso was residing with him. (b) Ajnaso had executed deed of gift in their favour. (c) that in between night of 5.11.83/6.11.83 he with other appellants had taken away Ajnaso for treatment as she had fallen down from staircases. (d) they had taken away Ajnaso to the clinic of Dr. Bijay Gupta. (e) she died on 07.11.83 at about 2:00 A.M. Since the deceased was residing with him, he was providing all sort of service to her but in the background of land dispute Krishna Mohan and his wife Darsi were adamant to implicate him. 25. Contrary to it the other two accused/appellants Ravindra Nath Singh and Satyendra Nath Singh had simply denied the same in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 26. How far statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C has to be taken into consideration has been recently decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nagesh v. State of Karnataka reported in 2012 (6) SCC page 477 and relevant paragraphs are 30, 31, and 32 which are as follows:- “30. How far statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C has to be taken into consideration has been recently decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nagesh v. State of Karnataka reported in 2012 (6) SCC page 477 and relevant paragraphs are 30, 31, and 32 which are as follows:- “30. The purpose of a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is to put to the accused the material evidence appearing in the case against him as well as to provide him an opportunity to explain his conduct or his version of the case. This Court in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328 has observed as follows: (SSC p. 334, paras 21-22) “21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced. 22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed a similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) while dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non-indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the trial court to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise”. 31. Non-indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the trial court to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise”. 31. Again in its recent judgment in Manu Sao v. State of Bihar (2011) 12 SCC 310 a Bench of this Court to which one of us, Swatanter Kumar, J., was a member, has reiterated the abovestated view as under: (SCC pp. 316-17), Paras 12-14) “12. Let us examine the essential features of this Section 313 CrPC and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Code. 13. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also to permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the court and besides ensuring the compliance therewith the court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or in the alternative to explain his version and reasons for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. 14. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313(4) explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution.” 32. It is also possible and permissible that an accused may remain silent but in that circumstance and with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the accused. PW 5, Smt Ushpa, is another vital witness who had seen the deceased when she was brought to the ambassador car and, according to her, lips of the deceased were blackish and her neck had black marks on two sides and when she enquired about her from the accused, she was told that the deceased had taken poison. PW 5, Smt Ushpa, is another vital witness who had seen the deceased when she was brought to the ambassador car and, according to her, lips of the deceased were blackish and her neck had black marks on two sides and when she enquired about her from the accused, she was told that the deceased had taken poison. The statements of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 9 read with the statement of this witness, establish the facts which form the very basis of the case of the prosecution and they have been proved in accordance with law. The trend of cross-examination on behalf of the accused implies admission of the death of the deceased having taken place in the premises in question by taking poison, however, the accused have failed to offer any explanation therefore which was least expected of him. 27. In the aforesaid background when the evidence of DW-1, Dr. Bijay Kumar Gupta is taken into consideration, it becomes evident that Ajnaso was admitted in his clinic on 5.11.83 at 11:00 P.M. and had expired on 7.11.83 at 2:00 A.M. while she was under his treatment and in the aforesaid background he had issued certificate (Ext-C). During course of examination he had also disclosed that he had treated the patient for only for the disease of bronchial asthma. In para-6, he had also disclosed that he had examined the patient thoroughly but had not found extensive bruises on the chest nor he could not detect any fractured ribs. According to him the patient was in severe pain but was able to speak with great difficulty and as she was having breathlessness, she was treated for the same. 28. When Ext-C on behalf of defence is gone through, it is evident that it is a certificate given by DW 1 stating that the deceased Ajnaso Devi was admitted to his clinic for the treatment of asthma since 5.11.83 at 11:00 P.M. and had expired before him at 2:00 A.M. on 07.11.83. 29. 28. When Ext-C on behalf of defence is gone through, it is evident that it is a certificate given by DW 1 stating that the deceased Ajnaso Devi was admitted to his clinic for the treatment of asthma since 5.11.83 at 11:00 P.M. and had expired before him at 2:00 A.M. on 07.11.83. 29. Thus on the basis of aforesaid analysis of evidence on the record as well as upon taking into consideration the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. revealing their defence evidence the following facts can be safely culled out, namely:- (a) there is admission on the part of appellants/accused that they had taken away Ajnaso in the night of 5.11.83 and as there happens to be admission of Ajnaso at the clinic of DW-1 at 11:00 P.M. which would itself suggest she had been taken away before that. As such, the assertion of the prosecution finds support so far it relates to disappearance of Ajnaso on 5.11.83 at 10:00P.M. (b) As per Doctor’s evidence (DW-1) as well as Ext-C Ajnaso was treated for asthma while in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. accused had answered that she was taken away for treatment of fracture of ribs allegedly on account of her fall from staircase. Therefore, there happens to be inconsistency in between the evidence of DW-1 in consonance with Ext-C at one part and statement of the accused at other. (c) As per evidence of PW-12, ante-mortem injuries were found over the dead body of deceased including fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs and on account thereof chest cavity contained liquid blood and the cause of death has been opined as shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries. This part of evidence of PW-12 has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, accused has not been able to explain presence of ante-mortem injuries found over person of deceased. 30. This part of evidence of PW-12 has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, accused has not been able to explain presence of ante-mortem injuries found over person of deceased. 30. In view of above we can safely conclude that the prosecution case stands proved by cogent and reliable circumstantial evidence with regard to taking away of Ajnaso by accused persons specially when it has been admitted by the appellant Devendra that he had taken the deceased with appellants Ravindra and Satyendra to hospital on any pretext whatsoever it may be and then her dead body is found and so in that event, it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the subsequent event leading to death of deceased. Moreover, when ante mortem injury on the person of deceased is found, which happens to be cause of her death it ought to have been explained by cogent and plausible explanation at their end as required in accordance with Section 106 of the Evidence Act but the same in the facts and circumstances of the case is not found to be properly discharged by the appellants who through the evidence of DW-1 had come out with a concocted version as is also proved from evidence of PW-12, the doctor who had held postmortem. 31. Thus, after taking into account the materials available on the record in its entirety no infirmity is found in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned court below. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail and therefore their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the remaining sentence. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 32. While I fully agree with the findings and the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, I would like to add to the following aspects. 33. As is apparent from the materials on record it is a case of circumstantial evidence inasmuch as no one has really seen the appellants causing fatal blow on the person of the deceased Ajnaso Devi @Saro Devi. In a case of circumstantial evidence the chain has to be so inextricably completed which would not leave for any scope of a doubt of there being a possibility of false implication. In a case of circumstantial evidence the chain has to be so inextricably completed which would not leave for any scope of a doubt of there being a possibility of false implication. A reference in this connection may be usefully made in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Mavi vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 7 SCC 45 wherein a safe guideline has been led out with regard to test and parameters in a case of murder arising out of circumstantial evidence. 34. The circumstance which has been put by the prosecution and could not be dislodged that the appellants had strong motive for killing the deceased Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi is that there was litigation between Savitri Devi wife of accused/appellant Devendra and the deceased Ajnaso Devi and Shakuntala Devi, the daughter of the informant Darshi Devi. The prosecution in this regard has demonstrated that at the time of occurrence a Title Suit was pending in between them and in the Title Suit the deceased had allegedly filed a written statement but when at the appropriate point of time the deceased was required to go to Banka for supporting her statement the accused persons had abducted her and later on caused her murder so that she could not support the written statement which was against the interest of the accused persons. The prosecution in this regard had also come out with a case that the Title Suit related to a deed of gift executed by deceased Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi in favour of Savitri Devi, the wife of appellant Devendra Kumar Singh in respect of 3.77 acres of land was found to have been fraudulently executed and she had cancelled it on 27.7.1989 and thus the appellant Devendra and his two associates, Ravindra and Satyendra both being sons of appellant Devendra had animosity against the deceased which ultimately led them to commit the offence of kidnapping the deceased followed by doing away with her life. 35. 35. Learned counsel for the appellants had tried to demolish this part of the prosecution by placing reliance on Ext-B, the written statement filed by deceased in Titile Suit No. 17 of 1982 wherein the deceased Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi had supported the case of the appellants and on the basis of this defence document Ext-B it was contended that the appellants had no motive to do away with the life of the deceased who was in fact supporting them in the court. It is truly an attractive submission but then when the prosecution has brought evidence to the effect that deceased Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi had discovered that a written statement had been filed on her behalf by the appellants without her consent and knowledge and when she had filed another written statement in the court, it would not be difficult to make a safe analysis that the appellants had every reason to believe that deceased could have also appeared in the court for supporting her subsequent written statement which could have deprived them of 3.77 acres of land being the subject matter of the deed of gift said to have been fraudulently executed in her name and was also subsequently cancelled. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellants had very strong motive for committing murder of the deceased, Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi. 36. Judged in this background when the next circumstance of the prosecution case relating to kidnapping of the deceased by the appellants in the fateful night of 05.11.1983 is taken into consideration, it would appear that there are two sets of witnesses to support the kidnapping by the appellants. The first part of the deceased being picked up from her house has been supported by two of the family inmates PWs-2 and 3 who have supported the prosecution case to the extent of their having seen Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi being lifted bodily by the appellants in the night at 10:00 P.M. on 5.11.1983. The first part of the deceased being picked up from her house has been supported by two of the family inmates PWs-2 and 3 who have supported the prosecution case to the extent of their having seen Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi being lifted bodily by the appellants in the night at 10:00 P.M. on 5.11.1983. The evidence of PWs-2 and 3 have already been discussed by my learned brother and I would not like to repeat them but this much has to be added that despite the fact that both PWs 2 and 3 were rustic lady witnesses nothing tangible could be taken out from them so as to discredit the first part of the prosecution case of kidnapping of the deceased taking place from the house. As a matter of fact PW-3 has fully substantiated her version because being a lady whose son PW-1 being not available in the house in the night of the occurrence, she had automatically gone to PW-5 Mukhiya who had supported the version of PW-2 to have received an information of kidnapping of the deceased by the appellants. 37. The second part of the prosecution case that after the deceased was taken out of her house by the appellants, she was further seen by the PWs-4, 6 and 7 in the way has also stood fully corroborated in the evidence of these three witnesses who have independently stated to have identified the appellants as also the deceased, Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi in the night of 5.11.1983. The only criticism about them that in the dead of the night they were not supposed to be present in the way and they have been purposely planted by the prosecution has also been successfully explained by them in their cross-examination that they had their field where they were irrigating their field and/or guarding their crops in the night, which is quite usual in the villages. The rest of the submission that they have been inconsistent with regard to manner of the deceased being carried away by the accused persons would also not in any way be fatal to the prosecution case because the deceased was aged about 90 years and therefore if she was said to be either bodily lifted or being supported to walk by accused person would not amount to material contradiction inasmuch as they have remained consistent in their evidence on the point of their having seen the deceased last in the company of the appellants outside her house and in the way before recovery of her dead body having any ante mortem injuries from the clinic of Doctor, DW-1. 38. It is here that the defence version as put in cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses have to be also tested. The defence case was that the deceased, Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi had fallen from the staircase in her house and therefore the appellants were taking her to the Doctor for her treatment. Thus when the defence itself had admitted the appellants in company of the deceased in the night and the possibility of PWs 4, 6 and 7 to have seen the deceased being carried away by the appellants even otherwise must be held to be admitted. The defence story of the deceased falling from the staircase and resultant fracture of her ribs however, has received a severe jolt inasmuch as a person having injury of broken ribs cannot be expected to walk. It is not the defence case that they had arranged any vehicle on which the deceased was being removed by them in the night for her treatment to the clinic of DW 1. Thus, the second part of the defence case that Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi had fallen from the staircase in the house, which has been totally denied by PW 2 and PW 3 the only two inmates of the house of the deceased in turn also demolish the story of fracture in the ribs sustained in the house which could not be satisfactorily explained by the defence by leading any evidence on this score. As has been noted above by my learned brother while examining evidence of PW-12, the Doctor conducting the post mortem that he had found no external injury on the person of the deceased, Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi which would be a condition precedent when a person would fall from staircase leading to fracture of ribs. In fact, it does become clear that the prosecution version as with regard to the deceased being only kidnapped for being taken away from her house without there being any injury in the house or in the way is also confirmed from the evidence of PWs-4, 6 and 7. If there be however any doubt on this aspect, it is the defence which has itself unfolded the mystery by producing the Doctor, DW-1 who has stated that the deceased was brought to his clinic and admitted for only for her treatment of bronchial asthma and not for the fracture of her ribs. 39. As a matter of fact, the defence had made a herculean effort to prove that the deceased Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi had died of a natural death. This was actually done by them in order to discharge the onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act because the deceased was seen last in their company before her being found dead in the clinic of Doctor Bijay Kumar Gupta, DW-1. Unfortunately, this part of onus however could not be successfully discharged by the appellants because of the admission of DW-1 that the deceased was found by him to be suffering from a severe form of bronchial asthma and he had treated her only for that disease. In fact, the said DW-1 has also accepted in his cross-examination that the deceased was thoroughly examined by him and he did not find any extensive bruises on the chest of the deceased nor could he detect that several ribs of the patient were broken. Such evidence of DW-1, therefore, in view of postmortem report and the evidence of PW-12 has been rightly rejected by the trial court specially when the DW-1 could not even present any admission register showing the admission of the deceased in his clinic in the night of 05.11.1983. Such evidence of DW-1, therefore, in view of postmortem report and the evidence of PW-12 has been rightly rejected by the trial court specially when the DW-1 could not even present any admission register showing the admission of the deceased in his clinic in the night of 05.11.1983. It is here that the evidence of PW-8, the compounder of the clinic of DW-1 becomes quite handy inasmuch as he has stated that appellants in company of the deceased had come to his clinic at 11:00 PM on 6.11.1983 which would fit in with the prosecution case of the deceased being taken away from her house as clearly stated by PW 2 and PW 3. 40. A question would therefore, arise that if the appellant had picked up the deceased from her house in the night of 5.11.1983 and had taken her away if she had actually suffering from only bronchial asthma where was she kept for the whole of the night of 5.11.1983 and till 11:00 P.M. on 6.11.1983? It was for the defence to explain this aspect but the only explanation coming in form of the certificate given by the Doctor DW-1 would hardly be acceptable specially when DW-1 has himself admitted that he does not maintain any admission register for the patient of his clinic. The defence did not produce of bed head ticket or treatment chart of the deceased so as to inspire confidence in the evidence of DW-1 and a mere medical certificate given by him cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. 41. Thus, if the appellants were in company of the deceased, Ajnaso Devi @ Saro Devi as has been proved with the help of the evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 also accepted by the appellant, Devendra in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, it was for them to explain as to how and at what point of time the deceased had sustained such extensive injuries leading to fracture of her five of ribs as found by the Doctor, PW-12 conducting the postmortem. As noted above PW 12 the Doctor conducting postmortem had found extensive bruises over front of chest as also fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on the left side the chest while 3rd and 4th ribs was also found fractured on the right side near sternum. As noted above PW 12 the Doctor conducting postmortem had found extensive bruises over front of chest as also fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on the left side the chest while 3rd and 4th ribs was also found fractured on the right side near sternum. Such injuries as per Modi?s Medical Jurisprudence could be caused by heavy pressure exerted on the chest inasmuch as it has been mentioned therein that symmetrical fractures of the ribs of both sides are often met when a person sits on the chest and compresses it considerably by means of fists, elbows or by trampling under feet and such wounds of lungs may be immediately fatal and cause haemorrhage or failure of respiratory system on account of presence of blood in the pleural cavity. 42. Thus, the third and last circumstance of the dead body of deceased having been recovered with the ante mortem injuries having five fractured ribs and bruises over her chest to have been sustained after she was taken away by the appellant from her house by itself would be completing the chain of circumstantial evidence leading to one and only conclusion that it were the appellants who had kidnapped the deceased and had subsequently done her to death and thereafter had taken her dead body to the clinic of Dr.Gupta, DW-1 for giving a look of her natural death. 43. These being inter woven circumstances as successfully proven by the prosecution, it has to be held that the prosecution on the basis of its own evidence on record as also on the basis of the discrepancies in the defence version as discussed above, has successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the appellants. 44. That being so, this appeal must fail and is accordingly, dismissed.