Judgment 1 By this appeal, the appellants who are the accused have taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 27thth August 2003 by which they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 397, 201 r/w 34, 494 r/w 34 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). 2 One Surendra Bhosale, Police Constable (P.W.No.1) was a member of the Special Task Force from 14th October 2001. He was allotted area from Sakinaka to MIDC Police station in Mumbai. P.W.No.1 along with another constable were on patrolling duty on 13th August 2001. At about 10.30 a.m, they came near Sai Plaza Bar and Restaurant at Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Sakinaka. At that time, they noticed one stainless steel tank which is normally used for storage of water. The tank was lying to the northern side of the road near the wall of Sainathwadi, Chakala. The said tank was covered with a cloth of maxi and the mouth of the tank was tied with white coloured small rope. As the said tank was lying unattended, P.W.No.1 enquired with the persons in the vicinity but nobody could give information. Hence, he untied the rope on the tank and removed the cloth. He found that there was a torso of female having head,neck, chest and abdomen. All four limbs and the portion below the abdomen was missing. There were several cut injuries on the face. There were some blood stained clothes in the said tank. He immediately informed the Control room. P.S.I. Madhukar Bhate (P.W.No.12) received wireless message at 10.40 a.m who was at the relevant time attached to Sakinaka police station. He along with A.P.I. Sanjay Neklikar (P.W.No.13) proceeded to the spot. P.W.No.1 showed the tank and torso of female dead body. Accordingly, P.W.No.12 recorded a complaint of P.W.No.1 and telephonically informed the police station to register the offence. Accordingly, C.R.No.508 of 2001 was registered and the number was informed to the P.W.No.1. Panchnama was drawn and the tank was attached and the part of the dead body recovered was sent for post mortem. 3 The tank was having a name of a person who was found in Chakala. Thereafter, the first appellant-first accused was traced and he was arrested. Panchnama was drawn and the tank was attached and the part of the dead body recovered was sent for post mortem. 3 The tank was having a name of a person who was found in Chakala. Thereafter, the first appellant-first accused was traced and he was arrested. He made voluntary statement to show the place (the dustbin lying by the side of the road) where the remaining parts of woman body were kept by him. He led the police party to the spot and a plastic bag containing foot and arms of the woman body was recovered from a dustbin. There was a chopper and a razor found in the same dustbin. 4 A voluntary statement was made by the first appellant to hand over ornaments and the amounts from a place. Accordingly, the first appellant led the police to a room at Sainath Nagar, pipe line Road. The sister-in-law of the first appellant opened the door. The first appellant removed one plastic bag kept behind the water tank in the bathroom in the said house. The ornaments and money was found in the said bag which were attached under panchnama. Another lady was found in the bath room of the said house. The first appellant identified the said lady as his wife who is the second accused-second appellant. She was taken to the police station. Before taking her to the police station, her blood stained clothes were attached by the police. 5 The police took search of the premises where the appellants were residing. In that room, they found blood marks on the floor. The samples of the blood stains were collected. The tank in the room was found having red coloured water. Subsequently, the police recorded the statements of witnesses. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 6 The prosecution has examined following witnesses: P.W.No.1 -Surendra Bhosale, the First Informant – Has deposed about discovery of the tank with the torso of a female, and bloodstained clothes. P.W.No.2 -Ashwin Prajapati, a panch witness – Panch of search of the house of Accused-No. 1 P.W.No.3 -Mrs. Rajashri Ramesh Desai, a pancha witness to the Panchanama of seizure of tank, and other articles in it. P.W.No.2 -Ashwin Prajapati, a panch witness – Panch of search of the house of Accused-No. 1 P.W.No.3 -Mrs. Rajashri Ramesh Desai, a pancha witness to the Panchanama of seizure of tank, and other articles in it. P.W.No.4 -Jagganath Baburao Udugade, a panch witness to recovery of body parts, chopper and razor from a dustbin P.W.No.5 -Yogesh Prajapati, a pancha witness to recovery of ornaments and money, and discovery of Accused no.2 from the house of the sister-in-law of Accused no.1 P.W.NO.6 -Tanaji Shinde, a panch witness of the seizure of the clothes of the Accused No.1 (one black trouser, one checked shirt) and one key of Navtal company seized from him. P.W.No.7 -Mrs. Shobha Ahit Mungekar, the owner of the tank, and the room where the Accused were residing. P.W.No.8 -Mrs. Shumi Sudhir Malik, a person allegedly residing with the deceased in the house of the accused who had lastly seen the Appellants with the deceased together on 12/10/2001 at 3.00 p.m and who identified head of deceased at Rajawadi Hospital. P.W.No.9 Kashinath Ranu Gamare, person who gifted the tank to Shobha(P.W No.7) at the time of her wedding. P.W.No.10 -Mrs.Zarana Samir Mitra, the sister of the deceased who identified her dead body and ornaments P.W.No.11 -Dr.Vithal Hasha Vihurkar, the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the torso and the limbs. P.W.No.12 -P.S.I. Bhate, an Investigating Officer – recorded the F.I.R and made the seizure panchnama at the spot. P.W.No.13 -Sanjay Neklikar, an Investigating Officer – He arrested Accused No.1, seized his clothes and one key, made recoveries, etc and filed charge sheet. 7 The learned counsel for the appellants has made extensive submissions. Her first submission is that there is absolutely no evidence against the second appellant. Her submission is that no incriminating material was brought on record as against the second appellant and it is a case of absolutely no evidence as far as the second appellant is concerned. She urged that on the date of the commission of alleged offence, she was pregnant and delivered a child on 28th October 2001. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and material documents on record. She urged that on the date of the commission of alleged offence, she was pregnant and delivered a child on 28th October 2001. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and material documents on record. The learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the body parts which were allegedly found in the dustbin at the instance of the first appellant were the body parts of the torso which was recovered from steel tank. She urged that there is no DNA test conducted to prove that the body parts were of the same body of which torso was found in the tank. She, therefore, submitted that the identity of the dead body was not established. She submitted that from the evidence of P.W.No.1 it appears that there were large number of injuries on the face and therefore, the face could not have been identified at all by any witness. She invited our attention to the evidence of P.W.No.2 Ashwin Prajapati, a Panch witness. She pointed out that the witness was taken to the room where allegedly the appellants were staying. She pointed out that the witness has not disclosed as to who brought the key for opening the lock put on the room. She pointed out that the witness admitted that the room appeared to have been cleaned. She submitted that the sample taken in the bottle was not sealed. The learned counsel pointed out that the witness claimed that on the loft in the kitchen of the premises, certain articles were kept and impression of the water tank having been lifted from the said place was seen on the loft and a lid of the stainless steel water tank was found on the loft. The learned counsel submitted that if somebody had cleaned the premises, it is impossible to find impression of water tank having been lifted from the loft. She pointed out that the witness claimed that a bag was found dumped in the premises in which one identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and one train ticket were found. The learned counsel pointed out that in the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, the name is shown as Dey Sova and the name of her husband is shown as Asokh. The learned counsel pointed out that in the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, the name is shown as Dey Sova and the name of her husband is shown as Asokh. She pointed out that in the charge framed by the Trial Court, the name of the deceased is described as Smt.Kitu @ Shobha Dey @ Boudhi. She pointed out that P.W.No.8 Shumi Sudhir Malik described the name of the deceased as Shobha @ Boudhi. The said witness stated that she identified the torso to be of said Shobha @ Boudhi. She pointed out that in the post mortem notes, it appears that subsequently on 25th October 2001, the name of the deceased is substituted as Smt.Shobha Dey @ Shobha Gayan @ Boudhi after striking out the earlier name as Sova @ Dey @ Ritu Das @ Bodhi. Her submission is that apart from the fact that identity of the torso is not established and it is not established that body parts recovered and the torso were of the same person, the name of the deceased appearing in the different documents is different. The learned counsel submitted that there is a serious doubt about the identity of the deceased person. Coming back to the evidence of the P.W.No.2, the learned counsel pointed out that the witness could not tell as to who supplied the key of the premises and the witness merely stated that the police opened the door with a key. 8 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the P.W.No.11 Dr.Vithal Hasha Vihurkar who performed the post mortem claimed that after post mortem of torso was made, two upper limbs lower portion of abdomen and right part of thigh were received. She pointed out that the witness claimed that the said parts were matching with the torso. Her submission is that the prosecution should have done DNA test and only the DNA test could have prove that the body parts were of the same torso. She relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State through CBI vs Mahender Singh Dahiya [ (2011) 3 SCC 109 ]. She urged that the recovery of the body parts at the instance of the first appellant cannot be believed. She urged that the time of death of the deceased is not established and hence, the chain is not complete. She urged that the recovery of the body parts at the instance of the first appellant cannot be believed. She urged that the time of death of the deceased is not established and hence, the chain is not complete. 9 The learned counsel submitted that in any event, it is not established by cogent evidence that the torso was of the person who was specifically named in the charge. The learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence to link the accused no.1 with the death of the deceased. She submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record anything to show that the appellant no.2-accused no.2 was staying with the appellant no.1. She submitted that the appellant no.2 was found in the house of her sister and there is nothing on record to show that the alleged offence was committed by the second appellant who was admittedly pregnant at the relevant time . Her submission is that this is a case of no evidence against the accused no.2-appellant no.2. She urged that the chain of circumstances leading to the inference of the guilt of the Appellants is not established. Her submission is that the guilt of the appellants has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. She further urged that even assuming that there is some evidence against the first appellant, the second appellant deserves to be set at liberty forthwith. 10 The learned A.P.P supported the impugned Judgment and order. The learned A.P.P has invited our attention to the relevant parts of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He urged that there is a cogent evidence against both the accused and no interference is called for. 11 We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary firstly to make a reference to the evidence of P.W.No.8 Shumi Sudhir Malik. She claimed that she knew both the appellants and she was acquainted with the second appellant who used to work in bar at Sakinaka and even she used to work at the same bar. She stated that she was residing with the second appellant near Saibaba Mandir, Mahakali Caves, Andheri after she got acquainted with her. She stated that she resided with the second appellant in her house for a couple of months. She stated that she was residing with the second appellant near Saibaba Mandir, Mahakali Caves, Andheri after she got acquainted with her. She stated that she resided with the second appellant in her house for a couple of months. At that time the first appellant was residing with the second appellant and one more girl by name Shobha alias Ritu alias Boudhi was residing with them. She stated that on 15th October 2001, the said Shobha was to go to her native place. She stated that on 12th October 2001, both of them were to go for marketing but Shobha @ Boudhi decided to stay back and decided go for shopping later on. She alone went for marketing. She stated that she did not return on the same day and stayed with her friend. She returned on 13th October 2001 when she found that the premises was locked. She stated that on 14th October 2001, while she was returning home at about 4.00 a.m, the police took her to Rajawadi Hospital where she was shown the torso of Shobha @ Boudhi which she identified. She found that Shobha @ Boudhi had blade injuries on her face. She stated that when she left the house of the second appellant on 12th October 2001 at 3.00 p.m., both the appellants and the deceased were in the house. She stated that deceased Boudhi was married and she was to go to her native place for Durga Pooja. There is hardly any cross examination made of the said witness except for giving suggestion that the witness did not go to Rajawadi Hospital and did not identify the head of the torso. She denied the correctness of the suggestion that as the police raided the place where she was working, under the pressure of police she has deposed. Thus, this witness has established that she along with the deceased whose torso was found by P.W.No.1 were staying in the premises of the appellants and that on 12th October 2001 in the afternoon, when she left the premises of the Appellants, the deceased was alone in the company of the appellants. When she came back on the next day, the premises was closed. She identified the head of the torso to be of the said Shobha @ Boudhi. There is no reason why the witness should depose against the appellants. 12 P.W.No.10 Mrs. When she came back on the next day, the premises was closed. She identified the head of the torso to be of the said Shobha @ Boudhi. There is no reason why the witness should depose against the appellants. 12 P.W.No.10 Mrs. Zarana Samir Mitra is the sister of the deceased. She stated that she identified the dead body of her sister Shobha. She identified the ornaments shown to her by police which were kept in a sealed envelope as the ornaments of her sister Shobha. In the cross-examination, she claimed that the ornaments were given by her to Shobha at Calcutta. She denied the correctness of the suggestion that the dead body shown to her was not of Shobha. Thus, the witness identified in the torso as the torso of her sister Shobha. 13 As far as the finding of torso is concerned, P.W.No.1 Surendra Bhosale, Police Constable was on patrolling duty found the stainless steel water tank in which the torso was found. He is the first informant in the case. The fact that a torso of a female body was found in the stainless steel water tank by P.W.No.1 has been duly proved by his evidence. The seizure panchnama has been also proved in evidence. P.W.No.11 Dr.Vithal Hasha Vihurkar is the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the upper part of the body consisting of abdomen, chest, neck and the head. The injuries noticed by him read thus: 1. There were 72 I.W on the forehead and all over face majority of wound were vertical and rest were oblique in direction. The wounds were of different sizes and shape and depth. The smallest sound measured was 2 cm x .2 cm.1 into skin deep. The largest wound was 7 cm in length and 5 cm in depth and maximum depth was muscle deep was about .3 cm. 2. I.W. 5 in numbers on the right ear from vertical to oblique direction. The length was 3.5 cm. Maximum length and minimum length was 1.5 cm. All these injuries were superficial except the injury near the ear lobule was through and through. 3. I.W on the right side of neck three in number oblique from 4.5 cm x 6 cm in length .1 cm in width and they were of skin depth. 4. The length was 3.5 cm. Maximum length and minimum length was 1.5 cm. All these injuries were superficial except the injury near the ear lobule was through and through. 3. I.W on the right side of neck three in number oblique from 4.5 cm x 6 cm in length .1 cm in width and they were of skin depth. 4. The I.W on the right side of the neck near shoulder oblique 9 cm in length 1.5 cm in width and 5 cm in depth (bone deep) 5. I.W on the neck horizontal just below thyroid cartilage 6 cm in length 1 cm in deep and 1 cm in width. Anterior part of Tracheal ring cut superficial. 6. I.W on the right shoulder oval in shape 10 cm vertical 30.5 cm horizontally at right shoulder joint. Right arm missing totally. 7. I.W on the left shoulder oval in shape 15 cm vertically 12.5 cm horizontal left arm missing. 8. I.W on the abdomen horizontal 20 cm below nipple through and through 23 cm horizontal latterly 15 cm vertically Minimum 3 of I.W over lapping each other were seen. He opined that out of these injuries no.4 and 5 on the neck were definitely ante mortem and rest of the injuries were inflicted subsequently after the death. He expressed the opinion that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to multiple incise wounds. There is no cross-examination made of this witness. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the death was homicidal. 14. P.W.No.10 Mrs Zarana Mitra was shown the torso which she identified as the dead body of her sister Shobha. She was also shown the ornaments seized by the police from the house of sister of second appellant. As far as the identification by the witness is concerned, except for giving a suggestion which was denied, no material has been brought on record. The witness admitted that there were injuries on the face. However, no suggestion was given that due to injuries on the face, the same could not be identified. On this aspect, it is necessary to go back to the evidence of P.W.No.8 Mrs.Shumi Sudhir Malik. She was residing in the premises of the appellants along with the deceased and the deceased was working with her in the same bar. She also identified the dead body to be of Shobha @ Boudhi. On this aspect, it is necessary to go back to the evidence of P.W.No.8 Mrs.Shumi Sudhir Malik. She was residing in the premises of the appellants along with the deceased and the deceased was working with her in the same bar. She also identified the dead body to be of Shobha @ Boudhi. In the examination-in-chief, she stated that there were blade injuries on her face. Only a suggestion was given to her that she did not go to Rajawadi Hospital and she did not identify the face of Shobha. The correctness of the said suggestion was denied by her. Even to this witness a suggestion was not given that the face could not be identified due to number of injuries on the face. Most importantly, in the cross examination, her version that she along with the said Shobha were residing along with the appellants in the premises of the appellants has not been challenged. She has stated that she resided with Shobha for a couple of months. She resided in the house of the second appellant for a couple of months and Shobha and first appellant were also residing in the same house. Thus, what is proved by the P.W.No.8 Mrs.Shumi Malik is that Shobha whose torso was found by the P.W.No.1 was residing together with the appellants. P.W.No.8 also stated that on 12th October 2001, when she left the premises of the appellants in the afternoon, Shobha was in the premises along with the appellants. She stated that in the night she stayed with her friend and on the morning of 13th October 2001, when she came back, the premises was locked. Even to this version, there is no serious challenge in cross-examination. In the last part of the examination-in-chief there is a specific assertion made by the P.W.No.8 that when she left the premises, even the appellants were there along with Shobha. Even to this statement, there is no challenge in the cross examination. 15 Thus, it can be safely held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Shobha whose torso was found by P.W.No.1 was residing in the premises occupied by the appellants till 12th October 2001 and in the afternoon on that day, Shobha was alone in the premises along with the appellants. 15 Thus, it can be safely held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Shobha whose torso was found by P.W.No.1 was residing in the premises occupied by the appellants till 12th October 2001 and in the afternoon on that day, Shobha was alone in the premises along with the appellants. In view of this evidence, the controversy raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the discrepancy in the name of the deceased appearing in various documents including the post mortem notes has hardly any relevance. The alteration made in the name of the deceased on post mortem notes also recedes to the background as the torso was identified by the P.W.No.8 who was residing in the premises of the appellants. The torso was identified to be of Shobha by her sister P.W.No.10.We must note here that the address of the premises of the appellants is `Adarsh Niwas', Jawli Compound, Near Saibaba Mandir, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The dead body(torso) was recovered on 13th October 2001 in the morning near Sai Plaza Bar and Restaurant, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Sakinaka Mumbai. The dead body was found at about 10.30 a.m. Therefore, in the present case there is evidence of last seen together against the appellants. They were last seen together with deceased Shobha in their own premises. In less than 24 hours from the time when they were last seen together, the dead body of the deceased Shobha was recovered at a place which is not far away from the premises of the appellants. Before dealing with the question whether there is explanation by the appellants as regards disappearance of Shobha , the other link evidence will have to be considered. 16 P.W.NO.7 is Mrs. Shobha Ajit Mungekar. She identified the steel water tank in which the torso was found as belonging to her. She stated that it was given to her as a gift by father of her friend Ratnamala. She stated that she got married on 17th June 1986 and the said date appears on the said tank along with the name of Kashinath Gamare. She stated that she was earlier occupying the premises i.e `Adarsh Niwas', Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai and she had given the premises on the loft to the first appellant about a month before the police came to her. She stated that she was earlier occupying the premises i.e `Adarsh Niwas', Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai and she had given the premises on the loft to the first appellant about a month before the police came to her. She identified the first appellant as said Raju Chakrawarthy and the second appellant as her wife who had also accompanied the first appellant when her premises were taken on rent. She claimed that the premises was given on rent for 11 months. She was cross examined by the learned counsel for the appellants. She stated that her maternal uncle had constructed a structure which was given to her. She stated that the premises let out to the appellants was constructed by her on the existing structure about 7 to 8 years back. She stated that apart from the said water tank, her other utensils were also kept in the said premises after the said premises was let out to the appellants and the appellants did not raise any objection to that. She stated that the appellant no.2 was carrying when the premises were let out to her. 17 P.W.No.12 Madhukar Bhate who acted as Investigating Officer before the investigation was handed over by P.W.No.13 Sanjay Neklikar. He stated that after reading the name on the steel tank, he had deputed the police constable to trace out the person and during investigation it was revealed that the same was gifted to P.W.No.7 Mrs.Shobha Mungekar by Kashinath Gamare (P.W.No.9). This version has been brought on record in the cross examination of the said witness. 18 P.W.No.13 Sanjay Neklikar stated that one key was found in the pocket of the trouser of the first appellant. The pancha witness P.W.6 Tanaji has supported this version. 19 According to the case of the prosecution which is reflected from the evidence of P.W.No.2 Ashwin Prajapati, a Panch witness that when the police searched the premises of the appellants, red coloured water was found in the pot in the toilet, the sample of which was seized by the police. A lid of the steel tank was found in the loft above the kitchen. The witness noticed that name of Chakrawarthy was written on the premises by a chalk. From the report of the Chemical Analyzer at Exh.34, it is revealed that the sample of red coloured liquid collected by the police was found to contain human blood. A lid of the steel tank was found in the loft above the kitchen. The witness noticed that name of Chakrawarthy was written on the premises by a chalk. From the report of the Chemical Analyzer at Exh.34, it is revealed that the sample of red coloured liquid collected by the police was found to contain human blood. 20 According to the case of the prosecution, the recovery of organs was made at the instance of the first appellant. P.W.No.4 Jagannath Baburao Udugade in the evidence stated that in his presence the first appellant volunteered to show the spot where certain parts of the body were kept and the place where weapons like chopper and razor had been kept. According to the version of this witness, the first appellant led the police party to a dustbin near Nandanwan Industrial Estate at Mahakali Caves Road. The parts of the body were found in 23 plastic bags in a dust bin. From the dustbin, a chopper and razor wrapped in red colour cloth was allegedly recovered. The report of the Chemical Analyser shows that both the said articles had stains of human blood on it. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that recovery is made on 14th October 2001 from the dustbin at public place to which several persons had access. From the description of the place where the dustbin was kept, it is apparent that the dustbin was open to sky and was by the side of the public road to which several other persons had access. Therefore, the evidence of the recovery is a very weak piece of evidence which cannot be taken into consideration. Apart from this, other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that body parts were of the same body of which torso has been recovered is not established as DNA test was not conducted. 21 At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to the evidence of P.W.No.5 Yogesh Narsibhai Prajapati who is the Panch Witness. He claimed that the first accused made a voluntary statement to show the place where the ornaments and money were kept. He identified the first appellant in the Court. He stated that the first appellant led the police party to Saibaba Nagar. He took the police party to the premises on third floor flat no.301. He claimed that the first accused made a voluntary statement to show the place where the ornaments and money were kept. He identified the first appellant in the Court. He stated that the first appellant led the police party to Saibaba Nagar. He took the police party to the premises on third floor flat no.301. A lady who opened the door was introduced as his sister-in-law. From the bathroom in that room, he took out a plastic bag which was kept behind the water tank. He stated that at that time, one woman came out who was pregnant stated before the police that she had committed a mistake. The witness identified the said woman to be the second appellant. The clothes on her person were seized by the police. He stated that from in plastic bag certain ornaments and currency notes were found. He identified the the said articles in the Court. Except for denials there is no serious cross-examination made of the witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. At this juncture, we may note that P.W.No.10 Smt.Zarana Samir Mitra was shown the ornaments who identified the same to be of her sister Shobha. 22 The scenario which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as under: (a) The torso found in the steel tank on 13th October 2001 in the morning was of one Shobha; (b) The said Shobha was residing in the premises of the appellants along with the appellants and the P.W.No.8 Shumi; (c) Deceased Shobha was lastly seen in the premises of the appellants along with the appellants at about 3.00 p.m. On 12th October 2001; (d) There is recovery of ornaments on the person of deceased Shobha from the house of sister of the second appellant where the second appellant was present who told the police that she has committed a mistake; (e) The recovery of torso of the deceased was made from a place which not far away from the place of the appellants within 19 hours from the time the appellants were last seen together with the deceased. 23 There is no explanation from the appellants for the disappearance of the said Shobha. It is true that it is not established that other body parts were allegedly recovered at the instance of the first appellant and that body parts were of the deceased. 23 There is no explanation from the appellants for the disappearance of the said Shobha. It is true that it is not established that other body parts were allegedly recovered at the instance of the first appellant and that body parts were of the deceased. But considering the evidence of last seen together and the proximity of time and place of the finding of torso of the deceased, this was a case where section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was required to be invoked. Moreover, the chain of circumstances leads to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. 24 The learned counsel for the appellants tried to submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that as the second appellant was pregnant at the relevant time, her participation in the crime was ruled out. Her submission was that the second appellant was found in the premises of her sister. However, there is evidence of last seen together. The second appellant was found in the premises of her sister only after the first appellant was arrested. The ornaments of the deceased were found in the said premises where the second appellant was found. Therefore, in our considered view, it is not possible to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court that the guilt of both the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. 25 Hence, we pass the following order: Appeal is hereby dismissed.