U.C. Dhyani, J.— In the instant case, unfortunate father of deceased lodged a complaint (Ext. Ka-2) on 03.11.1995 with Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gangolihat alleging culpable homicide amounting to murder of his daughter Maheshwari Devi. According to complainant Nain Singh, his daughter was married to Aan Singh about 16 years ago. Three children were begotten out of their wedlock. Daughter came to them on 24th October, 1995 along with her younger son. She stayed in her parental home till 31st October, 1995. On 01.11.1995 Aan Singh, husband of Maheshwari Devi came to informant’s residence. One Dalip Singh accompanied him. Informant father sent his daughter with her husband on 01.11.1995 to her matrimonial home. On 02.11.1995 at 8:00 pm Prem Singh, Harish Singh and Jeevan Singh came to informant father and informed him that his daughter has died. Informant father told Village Pradhan not to cremate his daughter till father or his representative reaches there. Since informant was an old man therefore, he sent his cousin Kheem Singh to see dead body of victim. Since Kheem Singh did not return therefore, father of victim moved an application addressed to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gangolihat (regarding said incident). 2. Father of victim mentioned in his complaint that when his daughter was with him (at matrimonial home) she disclosed that her husband Aan Singh was having illicit relations with Smt. Nandi Devi, a widow. Whenever she objected to it, her husband threatened her to kill her. Informant father was of the belief that her husband deliberately killed her. Informant was also apprehending that Patti Patwari would not be able to do anything because the accused was a moneyed person. 3. Before unfortunate father of victim could set criminal law in motion, one Daan Singh moved an application (Ext. Ka-3) addressed to Patti Patwari, Chaukhal mentioning therein that when on 02.11.1995 at 9:30 am, he was taking meals with his children, then Anand Singh (husband) of deceased came to him and said that his wife set herself on fire. Anand Singh requested Daan Singh to inform Patti Patwari, Chaukhal. Daan Singh himself went to the place of occurrence where he found that Anand Singh’s wife was dead. This information was given by Daan Singh to Patti Patwari, Chaukhal on 02.11.1995 itself. On the basis of same, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-11) was lodged on 02.11.1995 at 4:00 pm. Incident took place in the intervening night of 01.11.1995/02.11.1995. Daan Singh himself went to the place of occurrence where he found that Anand Singh’s wife was dead. This information was given by Daan Singh to Patti Patwari, Chaukhal on 02.11.1995 itself. On the basis of same, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-11) was lodged on 02.11.1995 at 4:00 pm. Incident took place in the intervening night of 01.11.1995/02.11.1995. Investigation of the case started. 4. After investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused appellant Anand Singh was filed for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 IPC. Charge-sheet against co-accused Nandi Devi was filed for the offence under Section 120B IPC. 5. Trial began before learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. Charges against Anand Singh & Smt. Nandi Devi were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined PW1 Doctor D.S. Garbyal, PW 2 Nain Singh, PW 3 Dalip Singh, PW 4 Daan Singh, PW 5 Kuruli Devi, PW 6 Jai Singh Pal (Patwari) and PW 7 Lachchi Ram Bakaria (Tesildar). All the evidence was put to accused persons. They said that they were framed in a wrong case and prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. After considering the evidence on record, trial court convicted accused-appellant Anand Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was awarded imprisonment for life. Aggrieved against the said order dated 04.05.2002, appellant Anand Singh preferred this criminal appeal. Co-accused Smt. Nandi Devi was exonerated of the charge framed against her by learned trial court. 6. PW 1 Doctor D. S. Garbyal, Deputy C.M.O, District Hospital Pithoragarh was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Pithoragarh on 04.11.1995. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Maheshwari Devi on 04.11.1995 at 10:30 am. Her dead body was burnt. Doctor found following ante-mortem injuries: (1) Lacerated wound present on left side of forehead 4 cm × 2 cm × bone deep. Distance 2 cm above of lateral angle of left eye. (2) Clotting 6 cm × 5 cm left frontal temporal region of head, on cutting haemolysed blood present. Doctor found following post mortem injuries: (1) Extensive burns on whole body, scalp, head front and back of chest and upper and lower extremes, whole anterior, lateral posterior surface except right leg below. (2) Hairs of scalp, eye lashes, pubic hair burnt. No seinging of hairs. Blackening over the body present. Doctor found following post mortem injuries: (1) Extensive burns on whole body, scalp, head front and back of chest and upper and lower extremes, whole anterior, lateral posterior surface except right leg below. (2) Hairs of scalp, eye lashes, pubic hair burnt. No seinging of hairs. Blackening over the body present. On internal examination – fracture on scalp. Brain lacerated, among other things. 7. Cause of death was coma due to ante-mortem injures and head injuries. The injuries were inflicted about 2 ½ days ago. As said earlier, postmortem was conducted on 04.11.1995 at 10:30 am and death was caused in the intervening night of 01.11.1995 and 02.11.1995. Doctor proved his report (Ext. Ka-1). He said that victim was killed and thereafter, her dead body was set on fire (burnt). She died because of ante-mortem injuries and thereafter, the dead body was burnt. Head injuries sustained by her were sufficient in the natural course to have caused her death. Nothing has come in cross-examination of Doctor to suggest otherwise what was stated by him in his examination-in-chief. In this way, Doctor has supported the prosecution story. 8. PW 2 Nain Singh was father of the deceased. He stated on oath that his daughter was married to accused-appellant about 15-16 years ago. His daughter used to come to her parental home after marriage. She used to complain about illicit relations of her husband with a widow of village. She used to request her father not to send her to her matrimonial home otherwise, her husband would kill her. He visited her matrimonial home on the occasion of Diwali about 5 years ago (of deposition). Anand Singh and Dalip Singh had come to his house. After counseling this witness (father) sent her reluctant daughter with her husband. Same day two persons came to him and intimated that his daughter has died. Since he (father) was an aged man, therefore, he sent his brother Kheem Singh to matrimonial home of his daughter. Kheem Singh returned next day saying that her in-laws did not permit him to see face of the deceased daughter. This witness proved complaint (Ext. Ka-2) addressed to S.D.M., Gangolihat. In the cross-examination, father of the victim said that his daughter was reluctant to go with her husband after Deepawali but she was persuaded to join her husband because her husband picked up her son (in his lap). This witness proved complaint (Ext. Ka-2) addressed to S.D.M., Gangolihat. In the cross-examination, father of the victim said that his daughter was reluctant to go with her husband after Deepawali but she was persuaded to join her husband because her husband picked up her son (in his lap). Reluctant daughter was persuaded to go with her husband (in the interest of their son). Before this incident, appellant had ousted her (victim) after beating. This witness was subjected to cross-examination at some length but nothing could come out in his cross-examination which might render any help to accused-appellant. 9. PW 3 Dalip Singh belonged to the village of accused-appellant Anand Singh. He said that on 01.11.1995 in the morning at 8-9:00 am when he was going to village Ratera for some work, accused–appellant Anand Singh met him. Appellant told this witness that his wife was in her parental home. Appellant requested him to accompany (him) to his wife’s parental home. PW 3 Dalip Singh accompanied appellant. The parents of victim met him. Victim had gone to take bath and came back after sometime. This witness heard the conversation of appellant and victim. Appellant was asking his wife to come to her matrimonial home, to which victim agreed. Thereafter, this witness left the couple there and went to meet his relatives. Victim was pregnant at that time. Appellant did not enquire from his wife as to who had conceived her. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by learned ADGC (Criminal). In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that they (he himself, appellant and victim) returned from parental home of victim together but he (this witness) left them on midway as he had to go to meet his relatives. When this witness came back to his village he heard that Maheswari was killed. When he was cross-examined on behalf of accused-appellant, he said that he stayed at victim’s parental home for about 15-20 minutes and thereafter left for (village) Raitora. He did not see Maheswari and Anand Singh coming back to victim’s matrimonial home. 10. PW3 Dalip Singh neither supported the prosecution story in full, nor supported the appellant’s cause. But one thing is more than clear. Testimony of this witness amply proved that he saw appellant in the company of victim last. He did not see Maheswari and Anand Singh coming back to victim’s matrimonial home. 10. PW3 Dalip Singh neither supported the prosecution story in full, nor supported the appellant’s cause. But one thing is more than clear. Testimony of this witness amply proved that he saw appellant in the company of victim last. He was the witness of last seen evidence, who, in spite of being declared hostile, strengthened prosecution case in as much as he saw husband and wife together on last day of life of wife. She was eliminated the same evening/night. 11. PW 4 Daan Singh knew appellant as they both belonged to the same village. He heard in the village that victim conceived a child outside her wedlock i.e. she had conceived from someone who was not her husband. On 02.11.1995 when he was present at his home, a villager named Kalyan Singh informed him that someone was burnt in the field of Chandra Singh. Appellant himself proceeded to that place. Appellant identified the dead body to be of his wife. Patwari Kanoongo came to the spot and prepared inquest report. Dead body was sent to postmortem. It was this witness Daan Singh who had addressed report (Ext. Ka-3) to Patti Patwari, Chuakhal. In the cross-examination, this witness said that appellant was doing some job in Delhi before this incident. He had come to village only 2-3 days before the occurrence took place. This witness was also doing some job in Delhi. Both of them (this witness and the appellant) came together from Delhi. When Anand reached his village his wife had gone to her matrimonial home. 12. PW 5 Kuruli Devi knew appellant Anand Singh who belonged to her village. Victim Maheswari was real sister of this witness. Co-accused Nandi Devi’s husband expired some 12 years ago. Maheswari was killed about 4-5 years ago (before her deposition). She stated in her examination-in-chief that when appellant came to his village, her sister (means appellant’s wife – victim) had gone to her parental home. Anand Singh and Dalip Singh brought her to matrimonial home. She died the same evening. Co-accused Nandi Devi and appellant Anand Singh were having illicit relations. They used to live together. The same was disclosed to her by victim. Appellant used to quarrel with victim. Appellant told this witness that he would kill her sister. Anand Singh and Dalip Singh brought her to matrimonial home. She died the same evening. Co-accused Nandi Devi and appellant Anand Singh were having illicit relations. They used to live together. The same was disclosed to her by victim. Appellant used to quarrel with victim. Appellant told this witness that he would kill her sister. In the cross-examination, she said that husband and wife used to quarrel with each other. Nandi Devi was annoyed with this witness as well as victim. Many other questions were asked on behalf of the appellant before the trial court but nothing has come out in her cross-examination which might render any help to the accused appellant. 13. PW 6 Jai Singh Pal, Patwari, Patti Siling wrote chik FIR on the basis of report of Daan Singh (Ext. Ka-3). He also prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-4) and proved other police papers from Ext. Ka-5- to Ext. Ka-9. He inspected place of occurrence, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-10), took statements of witnesses/accused, lodged chik FIR (Ext. Ka-11) on the basis of complaint of Nain Singh (father). On a question which was put up by the court, this witness said that since appellant had illicit relations with co-accused Nandi Devi, therefore, victim resided in her parental home quite often. Wife accompanied her husband to her matrimonial home before she was killed and burnt. Remaining part of the investigation was conducted by PW 7 Lachchi Ram who was posted as Naib Tehsildar on 14.11.1995. He took statements of other witnesses and finally submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-12) against accused-appellant and co-accused Nandi Devi. 14. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh has referred to question no. 9 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. posed before accused appellant. When he was asked what have you got to say on the report of Daan Singh (which was addressed to Patti Patwari, Chaurpal), accused endorsed authenticity of the report. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted before this Court that a gruesome murder was committed by appellant and thereafter, he tried to burn body of victim to conceal evidence. Sensing great folly on his part, he tried to take recourse to Law through Daan Singh whereby Daan Singh was requested to intimate Law enforcing agency about death of his wife. There was no doubt on acceptability of last seen evidence. The chain of circumstances was complete. Sensing great folly on his part, he tried to take recourse to Law through Daan Singh whereby Daan Singh was requested to intimate Law enforcing agency about death of his wife. There was no doubt on acceptability of last seen evidence. The chain of circumstances was complete. The evidence on record pointed out to the guilt of appellant and appellant only. Despite being partly hostile, one of the witnesses admitted presence of appellant in the parental house of his wife (victim). Appellant was last seen in company of victim. There is not an iota of doubt about the same. PW 2 Nain Singh was the most natural witness to have endorsed the fact that his son-in-law had come to his residence to take his daughter. The motive to commit crime was more than clear. Appellant was having illicit relations with a widow, to which appellant’s wife objected and therefore, appellant decided to eliminate her. Medical evidence has corroborated circumstantial evidence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since victim was having extra-marital relations with some one else, she conceived and therefore, she committed suicide out of realization that she had committed a wrong. The said argument is not acceptable because of following reasons: i) If victim was carrying four months pregnancy when she was done away with, where is the evidence that pregnancy was result of extra-marital relations? There is none? ii) How could victim commit suicide on her own without intervention of her husband when they were on way to her matrimonial home or had reached there? Wherefrom she brought matchbox and kerosene/petrol? Did she carry the same from her matrimonial home? No evidence. iii) Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that she conceived out of extra-marital relations, did the same give any right to appellant to kill her wife? iv) Accused/appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (reply to question no.5) admitted that he went to victim’s parental home to bring his wife back to her matrimonial home, although he denied that he did not take P.W.3 Dalip Singh with him. v) Appellant endorsed the authenticity of report (Ext. Ka-3) made by P.W.4 Daan Singh in reply to question no.9 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vi) Doctor’s evidence is contrary to the submissions of appellant for, the cause of death of victim was ante mortem injuries coupled with head injuries and not burning. v) Appellant endorsed the authenticity of report (Ext. Ka-3) made by P.W.4 Daan Singh in reply to question no.9 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vi) Doctor’s evidence is contrary to the submissions of appellant for, the cause of death of victim was ante mortem injuries coupled with head injuries and not burning. Dead body was tried to be burnt after killing her. vii) Lastly, if theory of committing suicide by burning could be believed contrary to evidence on record, let us hypothetically visualise the scene. Helpless lady poured kerosene oil on her, lighted the match and when she could not resist, she started running and suffered injuries. Helpless lady was running helter-skelter after having had caught fire. It has come on evidence that victim sustained lacerated wound in the left eye and wound on the temporal region. Cause of death was ante mortem injuries as well as head injuries. The post mortem report did not reveal that the death took place by burning. The evidence on record leads us to irresistible conclusion that victim was first killed and then her body was attempted to be burnt. 16. We are inclined to accept the finding of learned trial court as well as the arguments of learned Additional Government Advocate. Contrary submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant regarding his innocence are not sustainable on the basis of evidence on record. 17. The poor and helpless woman was being brought from her parental home to matrimonial home. It was alleged that husband had illicit relations with Nandi Devi, to which his wife objected and therefore, husband wanted to eliminate his wife. This was the motive to commit the crime. 18. One Daan Singh who was examined as P.W.4 submitted a report to the revenue police that appellant Anand Singh informed him that Maheshwari Devi w/o Anand Singh had committed suicide and her dead body was lying on a field. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when incident took place he was away from his house. The same is not acceptable because appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nowhere said that he was away when the incident took place. He had a duty to say so. Although it was not necessary, but he did not prove in defence that he was really away from place of occurrence. The same is not acceptable because appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nowhere said that he was away when the incident took place. He had a duty to say so. Although it was not necessary, but he did not prove in defence that he was really away from place of occurrence. He did know about the burning on 02.11.1995 even before the FIR was filed on 03.11.1995. Initial burden was discharged by prosecution by saying that the appellant had killed his wife. Learned trial court gave co-accused Smt. Nandi Devi benefit of doubt and she was acquitted of the charge of Section 302/34 IPC. Husband Anand Singh was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was awarded imprisonment for life. The accused/appellant had a duty to say something in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to where was he at the time of burning. 19. The evidence on record suggests that the incident took place in the intervening night of 01.11.1995/02.11.1995. Inquest was conducted on 02.11.1995. Information was given on behalf of the appellant (by PW4 Daan Singh) on 02.11.1995. FIR was lodged on complaint dated 03.11.1995 of Nain Singh (father). Post mortem was conducted on 04.11.1995 at 10:30 a.m. The information was given at the instance of appellant himself regarding burning of his wife. In the post mortem it was evidenced that she sustained certain injuries in addition to burning. Cause of death was injuries and not burning. It is therefore, evidenced that after killing an attempt was made to burn her body. Co-accused Nandi was acquitted because there was no motive and no evidence against her. The appellant in this case has put his neck in the gallows by his own volition. 20. The circumstances thus brought on record clearly point out to the guilt of the accused/appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence or indirect evidence against the appellant. This court is of the opinion that it is a case of circumstantial evidence in which the chain of events is complete and has been proved by the prosecution. How can it be said in the circumstances discussed above that there is nothing against appellant, as argued by learned counsel? 21. We are inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. There appears to be no reason to differ. How can it be said in the circumstances discussed above that there is nothing against appellant, as argued by learned counsel? 21. We are inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. There appears to be no reason to differ. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against these appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the learned court below. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 22. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 04.05.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh is affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial court is also affirmed. Accused-appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court concerned to serve out the sentence thus awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this court. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance. _