Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Informant Rajesh Kumar lodged a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) in police station Vikasnagar (Dehradun) on 18.04.2006 against Narendra Singh, alleging that on 17.04.2006, at around 07:00 P.M., informant’s co-villager Narendra Singh (accused) revealed to another co-villager Roshan Singh that he killed his elder brother Rajendra Singh alias Pappu about 2-2½ months ago. Accused made extra judicial confession to Roshan Singh that he (Narendra Singh) assaulted his father and ousted him from the house. The accused also confessed that, likewise, he killed his elder brother with an axe and dumped his dead body. On the basis of said complaint, a Case Crime No. 66 of 2006 was registered against accused Narendra Singh in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 of IPC. 2) After completion of investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-14) was filed by the Investigating Officer against accused Narendra Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. When trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3) As many as ten prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.1 Roshan, P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar, P.W.3 Mamchand, P.W.4 Rajendra Singh, P.W.5 Jai Chand, P.W.6 Chaman Singh, P.W.7 Dr. Alok Tewatia, P.W.8 Om Prakash, P.W.9 Head Constable Harkesh Singh and P.W.10 Sub Inspector Rudra Singh Pal (Investigating Officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused/appellant in defence. Thereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he said that the case against him was false and he was falsely implicated in the crime. 4) Trial court, after hearing both the sides, found accused Narendra Singh guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. He was convicted for the said offences and was sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal appeal was preferred. 5) P.W.1 Roshan, in his examination-in-chief, said that accused Narendra Singh met him about a year ago (of the date of deposition) at 11:00 A.M. Narendra disclosed to this witness that he killed his brother Rajendra Singh with an axe and dumped his dead body in his house. Accused told P.W.1 Roshan not to disclose this thing to anybody else. 5) P.W.1 Roshan, in his examination-in-chief, said that accused Narendra Singh met him about a year ago (of the date of deposition) at 11:00 A.M. Narendra disclosed to this witness that he killed his brother Rajendra Singh with an axe and dumped his dead body in his house. Accused told P.W.1 Roshan not to disclose this thing to anybody else. This witness was threatened by the accused of dire consequences, if he dared to disclose about the said incident to anyone else. 6) P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar was the informant, who proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). He also said that when P.W.1 Roshan met him in the village, he told him that accused Narendra Singh met him (Roshan) yesterday. Accused was under the influence of intoxication. When P.W.1 Roshan enquired from Narendra Singh about his father, Narendra disclosed that he ousted his father from the house after assaulting him and his elder brother Rajendra, who was a truck driver, was done away with by him. Rajendra was killed by Narendra with an axe and his dead body was dumped in his (Narendra’s) house. 7) P.W.3 Mamchand was the witness to the recovery of dead body of victim on the pointing of accused. This witness was also a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) and recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) of dead body of victim. The weapon used in the commission of crime (axe) along with wearing apparels, all stained with blood, were also recovered on the disclosure and pointing of accused, a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) whereof was prepared by the police. Police also collected simple soil/blood stained soil and prepared memo (Ext. Ka-5) thereof. P.W.3 Mamchand also identified axe which was used in the commission of crime, quilt cover, shirt, simple soil & blood stained soil and another material exhibits before the Court. 8) P.W.4 Rajendra Singh s/o Tikam Singh, who ran a grocery shop in the village where the incident took place, was also a signatory to recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) of the dead body of victim, memo (Ext. Ka-4) of recovery of blood stained axe and blood stained wearing apparels and memo (Ext. Ka-5) regarding taking into possession of simple & blood stained soil by the police. 9) P.W.5 Jai Chand corroborated the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4. He was also a signatory to recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) of recovery of dead body of victim. Ka-4) of recovery of blood stained axe and blood stained wearing apparels and memo (Ext. Ka-5) regarding taking into possession of simple & blood stained soil by the police. 9) P.W.5 Jai Chand corroborated the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4. He was also a signatory to recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) of recovery of dead body of victim. He was also a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2). 10) P.W.6 Chaman Singh stated that dead body of victim was recovered on the disclosure and pointing of accused Rajendra Singh in his presence. He was a witness to recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) of recovery of dead body of victim. He also signed the memo (Ext. Ka-2) regarding preparation of inquest report. In the cross-examination, this witness said that motive to commit murder was dispute over the land. 11) P.W.8 Om Prakash helped the appellant in digging out the head as well as rest of the body of the victim from the pit in the presence of police and other co-villagers. This witness was a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2). P.W.9 Head Constable Harkesh Singh was a formal witness, who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-7) and copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-9). 12) P.W.10 Sub Inspector Rudra Singh Pal, in his examination-in-chief said that after registration of chik FIR of the incident on 18.04.2006, the accused was arrested at 12:30 P.M. on that very day. During interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt before this witness. The dead body of the victim was recovered on the disclosure and pointing of accused and recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) in this behalf was prepared by this witness. The weapon used in the commission of crime (axe) along with wearing apparels were also recovered on the disclosure and pointing of accused, a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) whereof was prepared by P.W.10. This witness also collected simple soil and blood stained soil, a memo (Ext. Ka-5) whereof was prepared. After taking statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet (Ext Ka-14) was filed by this witness against accused Narendra Singh. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 S.I. Rudra Singh Pal said that he was the arresting officer, recovery officer and investigating officer of the case. Ka-5) whereof was prepared. After taking statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet (Ext Ka-14) was filed by this witness against accused Narendra Singh. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 S.I. Rudra Singh Pal said that he was the arresting officer, recovery officer and investigating officer of the case. 13) P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were the prosecution witnesses before whom accused confessed his guilt to the police and police recovered dead body of victim along with incriminating articles on the disclosure and pointing of accused/appellant. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) of recovery of dead body of victim on the pointing and disclosure of appellant contained the thumb impression of appellant. Dead body was found from a pit situated at a distance of 24 paces from appellant’s house. This place was in his vicinity and he has been visiting the place quite frequently. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) of recovery of blood stained axe (murder weapon), quilt cover being used by the victim when he was killed and blood stained shirt worn by appellant when he committed murder of victim, also contained the thumb impression of appellant. Axe was got recovered from a place near the room situated in the north-east direction. Blood stained shirt and quilt cover were recovered from behind wooden box which was kept in a room. Site plan (Ext. Ka-11) also depicted the same. When the same was put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the recovery at his instance, although he accepted that police arrested him and the dead body was decomposed. He did not say that his thumb impressions on recovery memos were taken under compulsion. Victim lived in the same house with the appellant. It was appellant’s duty to report about the death of victim, his real brother to the police, if somebody else killed him. He maintained silence. When asked about the recovery of dead body, he said that the same was not identifiable. He could not explain the same and thus, failed to discharge his obligation. 14) In the cross-examination of these witnesses nothing really came out which might raise a finger of suspicion on their testimony. The evidence tendered by such prosecution witnesses was acceptable. 15) This was a case of circumstantial evidence. He could not explain the same and thus, failed to discharge his obligation. 14) In the cross-examination of these witnesses nothing really came out which might raise a finger of suspicion on their testimony. The evidence tendered by such prosecution witnesses was acceptable. 15) This was a case of circumstantial evidence. There was confessional statement of the appellant to the police followed by recovery of dead body of victim and recovery of blood stained axe, used in the commission of crime at the behest of accused/appellant before P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6. Circumstantial evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence, in as much as P.W.7 Dr. Alok Tewatia, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased found the head of victim separated from the rest of body. Ante mortem incised wound was found at the base of neck. The dead body was in an advanced stage of putrefaction. Medical Officer opined that the cause of death of victim was shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injury. Although there was evidence of PW 1 Roshan also, before whom accused appellant made extra-judicial confession but the nature of extra-judicial confession is very week as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2002) ACC 757, and therefore, not much reliance can be placed on such type of confession. But there were evidences against the appellant, which evidences were acceptable under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. 16) The accused committed murder of his elder brother for the purpose of enjoying the property exclusively and ousted his father from the house because of the selfsame reason. The dead body of victim was recovered from a place adjoining the house of accused. It was his obligation to explain how the dead body of his elder brother was recovered from his place? Instead of explaining the same, he took a false plea that the dead body was not identifiable. Where was his brother? If he did not see him, why the matter was not reported to the police by him? How the dead body was found in his place? How other incriminating articles were found in or around his house on his pointing? He did not say that his thumb impressions on recovery memos were taken by the police under compulsion. Thus, he has miserably failed to discharge his obligation. How the dead body was found in his place? How other incriminating articles were found in or around his house on his pointing? He did not say that his thumb impressions on recovery memos were taken by the police under compulsion. Thus, he has miserably failed to discharge his obligation. It was a case of circumstantial evidence in which every link evidence was proved by the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution story has thus been proved. 17) Learned counsel for the accused/appellant pointed out certain anomalies in the investigation of the case. We may make it clear that the fault in the investigation is not a cure for the accused. Prosecution cannot be faulted for the mistakes committed by the Investigating Officer. 18) In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order of the court below. Prosecution has been successful in proving the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There seems to be no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment/order passed by learned court below is affirmed, as also the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/appellant Narendra Singh. 19) Accused/appellant is in jail. Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the convict/appellant serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded by learned trial court and thus affirmed by this court. Let a copy of this judgment be also sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned where accused/appellant Narendra Singh is currently serving out his sentence.