Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.— 1. All these appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.108 of 2003, State Vs. Pawan Kumar @ Pappu and others, whereby the accused Pawan Kumar @ Pappu, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Nanhe Singh have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. Each of them was further convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sanjay Jaiswal @ Sanju was in Jail having been convicted in a crime under the NDPS Act. He remained in Jail from February 2002 till 28.5.2003. As soon as he was released from jail on 28.5.2003, he reached his house at Haldwani where he found his wife missing. Thereafter, he proceeded to Pilibhit where his mother was residing to enquire about the whereabouts of his wife where he was informed that more than a year back (when the complainant was in jail), his wife had gone to meet Pawan Kumar @ Pappu (elder brother of complainant) in order to get some money. And she never returned Taking this clue from his mother, the complainant reached the house of Pawan Kumar on 31.5.2003 where he was informed by the wife of Pawan Kumar that almost a year back, i.e. in the month of April 2002, his wife (i.e. Sanju’s wife) had come to their house demanding some money from her husband, i.e. Pawan Kumar @ Pappu, and she was murdered by Pawan Kumar along with his associates, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Nanhe Singh. Getting this information, immediately an FIR was lodged on 31.5.2003 itself by complainant Sanjay Jaiswal @ Sanju at P.S. Haldwani, Distt. Nainital under Sections 302/201/307/506 IPC. Thereafter, on the same day, accused Raj Kumar and Nanhe were arrested by the police. At the relevant time, Pawan Kumar was languishing in jail, having been convicted in a crime under the NDPS Act. 3. Thereafter on the pointing out of accused Nanhe Singh and Raj Kumar, a human skeleton allegedly of deceased Soni was recovered near railway track in Gola river. At the relevant time, Pawan Kumar was languishing in jail, having been convicted in a crime under the NDPS Act. 3. Thereafter on the pointing out of accused Nanhe Singh and Raj Kumar, a human skeleton allegedly of deceased Soni was recovered near railway track in Gola river. The pieces of bones were collected in a bag and sent for chemical examination. 4. After that the Police filed chargesheet against all the three accused under Sections 302/201/307/506 IPC. Thereafter the Special Judicial Magistrate, Nainital committed the case for sessions on 15.9.2003. 5. In all, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The chief witnesses here would be PW1 Kamla Devi (wife of accused Pawan Kumar), PW2 Sanjay (complainant) and PW3 Dolly (minor daughter of accused Pawan Kumar and PW1 Kamla Devi). 6. P.W.1, who was an eyewitness to the incident, in her examination-in-chief fully corroborated the story of prosecution and elaborated what had happened on the first night of “Navaratra” in the year 2002 (which fall in the month of April). She stated that accused Pawan Kumar is her husband, second accused Raj Kumar @ Raju is her “Devar” (brother-in-law) while third accused “Nanhe” works for them and runs their ‘Thela’ (a cart on which wares are exhibited and sold). She further stated that complainant is also her brother-in-law while his wife, i.e. deceased Soni was her sister-in-law (Devrani). Before the incident, her sister-in-law Soni used to come at her place and demand money from her husband Pawan. The reason being that her husband had sold off a property at “Durga” Colony for a sum of Rs.2.50 lakh and the deceased was demanding her share out of this property from accused Pawan Kumar. On the first day of “Navratra” in the month of April, 2002, at about 8:30 PM, Soni came again to her house demanding money from her husband. Another reason for demanding this money by Soni was that her husband Sanjay was in Jail and hence, she required some funds. Accused Pawan Kumar told Soni that he will arrange the money and asked her to stay in the house. Thereafter, accused Raju and Nanhe also reached the house. All three of them took Soni to another room which was adjacent to the room where the rest of the family was staying. Accused Pawan Kumar told Soni that he will arrange the money and asked her to stay in the house. Thereafter, accused Raju and Nanhe also reached the house. All three of them took Soni to another room which was adjacent to the room where the rest of the family was staying. Once all four were inside that room, accused Nanhe caught hold of the feet of Soni, accused Raj Kumar caught hold of her hands, and accused Pawan Kumar started throttling her and when she became almost “half dead”, her head was chopped off by a “Gandasa” (a sharp edged weapon). She further stated that when the accused were in the act, as narrated above, although the room was locked from inside, the witness (PW1) could see the entire incident through a slit which was there in the wall, as the plaster in the wall had peeled off and there was a space between two bricks. She further stated that the room was well lit and she could see the entire incident happening. After the accused had killed Soni, in the manner as narrated above, they took the dead body from that room and placed it in another room which was near the stairs on the same floor. The body was kept in this room near the stairs for the whole day and in the following night, the body was again cut into several pieces and placed into two bags. Consequently, the accused got a scooter and took away the body from the place of incident. She further stated in her examination-in-chief that she did not report this matter to the Police as she was threatened by all the three accused persons of dire consequences. She further stated that about two years back, accused Pawan Kumar, i.e. her husband, had also slit her throat by means of a sharp edged weapon, as a consequence of which she underwent medical treatment which required 16 stitches. All the same, since it was a matter of domestic violence, she did not report the matter to the Police. She further narrated that Sanjay Kumar, after being released from jail, met her on 31.5.2002 in the morning at about 10-10:30 AM and enquired the whereabouts of his wife Soni and on his questioning, she narrated the entire story to him. She further narrated that Sanjay Kumar, after being released from jail, met her on 31.5.2002 in the morning at about 10-10:30 AM and enquired the whereabouts of his wife Soni and on his questioning, she narrated the entire story to him. The Police Inspector also enquired from her on the same day, i.e. on 31.5.2002 between 3:30 to 4 PM and took her statement. 7. Thereafter, this prosecution witness was put to heavy cross-examination by the defence. She narrated the name of her father as Heera Singh, she further stated that earlier she was married to one Naathu Singh but she had no issues out of that wedlock and now she does not know whether Naathu Singh is dead or alive. She further stated that her father was working in Irrigation Department and she has got education only till Class VII. She also stated that accused Pawan Kumar used to trade in “Charas” (hemp or cannabis) which he used to take in the hilly areas. She further states that she is residing with Pawan Kumar for last 16-17 years. Her age at that time is about 32 years. She further stated that she has a girl of 15 years of age who is now married and also has a child. She has denied that Firoz, who resides in her neighbourhood, takes tuition of her daughters. She also denied having any relations, physical or otherwise with Firoz. She further denied that because of her relations with Firoz, her relations with her husband Pawan Kumar were strained. She further stated that on the date of incident, deceased Soni had come to her house alone. She further stated that on 31.5.2003, Police came to her house enquiring about the incident. She stated that she had informed the Police about the exact place where Soni was murdered and also the fact that the door was closed from inside but she could see the incident from the slit which was there in the wall. There was enough light in the room where the incident had happened. She further disclosed that on the date of incident, Soni was wearing a blue colour suit. 8. Before we examine the second witness, i.e. PW2, who is the complainant, it would be worthwhile to examine first the statement of PW3 Km. Dolly, who is a minor girl and was 10 years of age at the time of incident. She further disclosed that on the date of incident, Soni was wearing a blue colour suit. 8. Before we examine the second witness, i.e. PW2, who is the complainant, it would be worthwhile to examine first the statement of PW3 Km. Dolly, who is a minor girl and was 10 years of age at the time of incident. At the time of her examination-in-chief, she was about 12 years of age. Before putting her to examination, relevant questions were put to her by the court to verify as to whether she can give deposition or not. She answered these question in a matter of fact manner and the Court became convinced that she was fit for the said examination. In her examination-in-chief, this girl states that her name is “Dolly”, her father’s name is Pawan Kumar and they reside in Morarji Nagar, Haldwani. The deceased Soni was her “Chachi” (aunt) who was the wife of Sanju uncle (Chacha). About 2-2½ years back, her aunt Soni had come to their place at about 7-8 PM in the evening. Soni had come to their place asking money from her father Pawan. After her arrival, her father also reached the house. Her aunt Sony asked about the money which she required for “bail” of her husband, as at that time her uncle was in Jail. Thereafter this witness stated that her father told something to her aunt which she (the witness) did not listen. All the same, after sometime, “Nanhe” uncle and “Raju” uncle also arrived at their place. All three of them called her aunt to the next room. Once they went inside the room, the room was locked from inside and her father throttled the neck of her aunt when her aunt started screaming. She also stated that she along with her mother could see from the slit of the wall that her father was pressing the neck of her aunt and Raju uncle was holding the hands and Nanhe was holding the feet of her aunt. After that accused Pawan Kumar strangulated her aunt by ‘CHUNNI’ on which her aunt became unconscious. She along with her mother saw the entire incident happening from the hole in the wall. After that accused Pawan Kumar strangulated her aunt by ‘CHUNNI’ on which her aunt became unconscious. She along with her mother saw the entire incident happening from the hole in the wall. She further stated that there was a place in the wall and the bricks were also broken which created the space in the wall from which they could watch what was happening on the other side of the wall. Thereafter this child stated that she got frightened and went to sleep. 9. After sometime her father came to the room and said that nobody should tell about this incident to anybody and in case they do, they would be killed. After that she saw nothing. This witness further stated that after the bones were recovered, certain questions were asked from her by the Police and she told the Police what was happened. This child witness was also put to cross-examination where nothing material in favour of defence has been revealed. 10. PW2 Sanjay, who is complainant of the case, narrated that he was released from jail on 28.05.2003. His wife was staying with his mother at Halduchaur and immediately after his release from jail he reached his house on 29.05.2003 but did not find his mother or wife at that place. He then went to Pilibhit to enquire from his mother about his wife. When he met his mother at Pilibhit she informed him that when he was in jail, his wife had gone to Pawan Kumar and never returned. On the same day, he boarded a train from Pilibhit and reached Haldwani in the morning. At about 09.00 a.m. in the morning he reached the house of Pawan Kumar where he met his sister-in-law (“Bhabhi”) Kamla. Initially his Bhabhi was reluctant to tell him anything but when he asked her in strong words, she narrated that her husband Pawan Kumar, Raju and their ‘Karigar’ (worker) Nanhe had killed his wife Soni by cutting her head from ‘Farsa’ (an axe or a hatchet) on the first day of Navratra in the month of April, 2002. Thereafter, her body was deposited somewhere else. This witness further stated that on the very day, he reported the matter to SHO Sri R.S. Dhyani. An FIR was written on his narration. Later on FIR was typed and he signed the same. Thereafter, her body was deposited somewhere else. This witness further stated that on the very day, he reported the matter to SHO Sri R.S. Dhyani. An FIR was written on his narration. Later on FIR was typed and he signed the same. On the same day at about 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. when he was standing at Mandi Gate Haldwani, he was informed that the police have arrested his brother Raj Kumar and has taken him to Chaudhary Colony, which is on the eastern side of Bareilly Road. When he reached that spot, he saw policemen standing near the Railway track where Raj Kumar and Nanhe were digging the ground by ‘Sabbhal’ and Spade. On their digging, they found some bones, hair and clothes etc. Accused Nanhe and Raju identified the clothes, so recovered, as belonging to the deceased Soni. Thereafter a “fard” was prepared wherein he was also asked to put his signatures. This witness was again put to cross examination by the defence but nothing material could be pointed out so as to create any doubt in the prosecution version. 11. PW4 is Dr. K.D. Pandey, who was posted as Medical Officer, in Base Hospital on 01.06.2003. On the same day at about 04.00 p.m., he examined skeleton and conducted examination of the same, which according to the police belonged to a woman namely Soni. In the skeleton given to him, a human skull, the bones of lower jaw as well as the bones belonging to various parts of human body such as hip, thigh, hands etc. were found. After examining the body, particularly teeth, skull, hip bones etc. he drew following conclusions:- i. Skeleton and bones belonged to human being. ii. The age of this human being was 17 – 25 years and; iii. It belonged to a woman. 12. PW5 Gopal Ram was a constable; PW6 Rajendra Singh was the police officer who started the investigation and PW7 Inspector Harish Mehra who concluded the investigation. 13. There is another important witness PW8 Dr. C.P. Basoda, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Haldwani, who has given his expert opinion about the skeleton and bones given to him. He also obtained further opinion of Dr. S.K. Rai Chaudhary, Professor/Head of Department, Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Haldwani. 13. There is another important witness PW8 Dr. C.P. Basoda, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Haldwani, who has given his expert opinion about the skeleton and bones given to him. He also obtained further opinion of Dr. S.K. Rai Chaudhary, Professor/Head of Department, Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Haldwani. In the report submitted by him on 30.08.2006, he has opined that the skeleton is of a human being and belonged to a woman, aged between 18 – 21 years. 14. There was another material exhibit placed before the trial court, which was the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. About the weapon in question i.e. ‘Patal’ as well as the earth samples from the site, the report states that on the ‘Patal’ (weapon used in crime) blood stains were recovered and on the earth sample, disintegrated blood spots were recovered. 15. A very significant aspect strengthening the prosecution version is the recovery of human skeleton at the instance of accused Raj Kumar and Nanhe. This skeleton was decisively detected to be of a female, aged between 17 to 21/25 years. Recovery memo was also prepared on the spot, which is Exhibit Ka-8. 16. This recovery is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Same is the case of the recovery of the weapon which was used by accused persons in the assassination and the blue torn garment of the deceased. This weapon “Patal” was recovered at the pointing out of accused Pawan Kumar, who used this sharp edged weapon to cut the throat of deceased Soni after strangulating her by ‘Chunni’. These two recoveries strengthen the prosecution case and corroborate the rest of evidence, as available on record. 17. Learned Amicus Curiae, representing the defence pointed out various discrepancies in the prosecution case. The chief being that there has been a difference in the actual recovered murder weapon ‘Patal’ and the weapon, as disclosed by PW1 Kamla (eyewitness) was ‘Gandasa’. This aspect has been dealt with and discarded by the trial court. This Court also finds that ‘Gandasa’ and ‘Patal’ are broadly the same category of weapons. The difference is primarily of nomenclature because in one place it is called ‘Gandasa’ while another, the same weapon is called ‘Patal’. Even if there is a difference between the two weapons, the difference is very small and not material. 18. This Court also finds that ‘Gandasa’ and ‘Patal’ are broadly the same category of weapons. The difference is primarily of nomenclature because in one place it is called ‘Gandasa’ while another, the same weapon is called ‘Patal’. Even if there is a difference between the two weapons, the difference is very small and not material. 18. The second discrepancy pointed by the defence counsel is that statements of PW1 and PW3 cannot be believed, inasmuch as, they were in a different room, which was locked and their version that they could watch the proceedings from the slit of the room, cannot be believed, since no slit or hole in the wall has been shown in the site plan. The defence counsel has again pointed out that after the alleged murder took place, the body was dragged and put into another room, which has been called by the prosecution as a room near the staircase, however, no ventilator in that room has been shown in the site plan, and as such, it was not possible for PW1 and PW3 to witness the incident. It is undoubtedly true that the mention of “holes” in the wall and “ventilator” in the staircase room do not find any mention in the site plan. This though can be a shortcoming in the report of the site plan but does not damage the case of the prosecution for the reason that the eyewitness account of both PW1 and PW3, who are wife and daughter of the main accused Pawan Kumar, leave no doubt in our mind about the truthfulness of their statement and consequently the fact that they indeed saw the incident as narrated by them. 19. According to prosecution, the dead body was dragged and placed in another room for a whole day to cut it into various pieces so that it could be disposed of easily. PW1 has categorically stated in her statement that she could hear from the room the voices of body being chopped and cut into pieces. Even if her statement of actually seeing the body from the ventilator (of seeing the actual chopping of the body) is discarded, it is not of any material value. 20. Therefore, it is clear that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if her statement of actually seeing the body from the ventilator (of seeing the actual chopping of the body) is discarded, it is not of any material value. 20. Therefore, it is clear that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There was a clear motive on the part of the accused to commit murder the deceased, as she was repeatedly demanding money from accused Pawan Kumar. Even if this motive is considered to be a thin, it has got little value inasmuch as the case before the court is not of circumstantial evidence, but it is a case of direct evidence where two eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW3, one being wife and another being minor daughter of the accused Pawan Kumar have witnessed the incident. Their statements are totally believable and nothing has been shown on record to show that these statements could be false. The appeals therefore, have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. All the four appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence, as imposed by the trial court against each of the accused, is upheld. The appellants are already in Jail. They shall serve out the sentence as imposed against each of them. Lower court record be sent back for compliance. _