Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.— These two criminal appeals are directed against common judgment dated 20.7.2004 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 89/2003, whereby accused-appellant Teekamchand has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. That apart, he along-with accused-appellant Ramu Nayak (appellant in Appeal No. 801/2004) was also convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC. They were on this count sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of its payment, they were directed to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Kailash Kumar Sharma (PW. 9) submitted a written-report (Exhibit P.14) on 6.5.2003, to S.H.O., Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer. The report was lodged against three accused persons. In the report, it was stated by the complainant that on 5.5.2003 he received a telephone call from an unknown person informing that complainant's daughter Chandra Kanta has been murdered in the night of Saturday by her husband accused-appellant Teekamchand Sharma, her second wife and younger brother Mukesh, and the dead body was also disposed off. After receiving such information, the complainant, his elder brother Murari Lal Sharma, nephew Anand Sharma and brother-in-law reached Pushkar on 6.5.2003. They searched for complainant's daughter in the house of her in law but she could not be traced. Then they enquired about her whereabout from her husband accused-appellant Teekamchand, but he showed ignorance and told that she had left the house in the night of Saturday. It was alleged that Teekamchand, his second wife (foreigner) and younger brother Mukesh conspired and murdered his daughter Chandra Kanta and concealed her dead body. It was also mentioned that the marriage of Chandra Kanta with accused Teekamchand took place nine years ago. She had two daughters out of this wedlock. After the marriage, accused Teekamchand and his family used to harass his daughter. In order that there was no dispute in the matrimonial life, he did not lodge any report with the police. Accused Teekamchand thereafter performed another marriage with an English lady. Teekamchand thereafter started giving more torture to his daughter as the accused and his family wanted to get rid of her. 3. In order that there was no dispute in the matrimonial life, he did not lodge any report with the police. Accused Teekamchand thereafter performed another marriage with an English lady. Teekamchand thereafter started giving more torture to his daughter as the accused and his family wanted to get rid of her. 3. The police, on the basis of the said written-report, registered a regular first information report being F.I.R. No. 80/2003 for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC, showing the date of occurrence to be 3.5.2003. 4. After usual investigation, the police filed challan in the court of Magistrate against accused appellants Teekamchand and Ramu Nayak for offence under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC, who, in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants for offence under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. They claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 23 witnesses and got 31 documents exhibited. The defence did not examine any witness, however, got three documents exhibited. The trial Court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Hence, these two separate appeals on behalf of accused-appellants. 6. We have heard Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellants and Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellants, argued that there is no evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants in as much as they have been mechanically convicted without there being an iota of evidence. The findings of the trial court is based on surmises and conjectures. Neither the circumstances put forth by the prosecution were individually proved against the appellants nor do they form chain of circumstances so complete conclusively point as to the guilt of the accused-appellants. 8. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants argued that learned trial court did not consider that the first information report in this case was lodged with great amount of delay, which enabled the complainant to concoct the story. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case hinges only on circumstantial evidence. None of the circumstances connect the accused-appellants with the crime. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case hinges only on circumstantial evidence. None of the circumstances connect the accused-appellants with the crime. Learned trial Court has basically found six circumstances proved against the accused-appellants which have been enumerated at page 5 of the judgment. The first circumstances was that Anita @ Chandra Kanta was wife of the accused Teekamchand and that on receiving information about her disappearance, complainant Kailash Kumar Sharma, father of deceased Anita @ Chandra Kanta, and his relatives reached pushkar. They enquired from Teekamchand but he failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding whereabouts of the de-ceased, therefore, they handed him over to the police with the written-report. 9. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that mere fact that accused-appellant Teekamchand was husband of deceased Anita @ Chandra Kanta, does not prove that it was alone he, who could have murdered deceased. According to learned trial court, recovery of dead body was made at the instance of accused-appellant Teekamchand, therefore it was the major circumstance against her in the chain of circumstances. Recovery of dead body in any case may not be relied against the accused-appellant because the motbir witnesses, namely, Subhash Bhardwaj (PW. 10) and Smt. Narbada Devi (PW.13) have both turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel referred to the statement of complai-nant Kailash Kumar Sharma (PW.9), and argued that this witness in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that he along-with the police personnel went to the jungle in the morning at the place wherefrom dead body was recovered in the evening of that day. Second time he was accompanied by the police officials, accused, S.D.O., photographers etc. Anand Sharma (PW.15) has also made similar statement. He has stated that the police twice went to the place wherefrom the dead body was assumed, first in the morning and thereafter in the evening. If this evidence is analyzed in the light of the information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the accused (Exhibit P.23), the concoction by the prosecution story becomes evidence. If this evidence is analyzed in the light of the information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the accused (Exhibit P.23), the concoction by the prosecution story becomes evidence. The information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by accused-appellant Teekamchand was recorded at 1.00 pm on 6.5.2003, whereas according to the aforesaid witnesses the police already had the information about the place wherefrom the dead body was exhumed even in the morning. It proves that the police had already information about the dead body in the morning. The information shown to have been recorded later at the instance of accused around 1.00 pm was nothing but an eye wash. Moreover, further manipulation of the record also becomes clear when reference is made to the memo of information under Section 27 allegedly given by accused Ramu (Exhibit P.24) examined. This is most significant circumstance relied on by the trial court to convict him for offence under Section 201 IPC. The information memo (Ex.P/24) shows that this was prepared at 2.10 pm on 6.5.2003, which is any case could not be a fresh information because already if the police had information about the place where the dead body was buried in the morning at 8.00 am and thereafter when memo of information was recorded at the instance of accused Teekamchand at 1.00 pm Recovering of the same information again could not possibly lead to discovery of new fact. The memo of information (Ex.P/24) has been prepared against accused -appellant Ramu Nayak with the sole purpose to secure his conviction only because there was no other evidence against him. Murari Lal Sharma (PW19) has also stated that the police had taken the accused to the place of incident in the morning at 8.30 am. 10. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellants, in this connection relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kamla- AIR 1991 SC 967 , State of Karnataka vs. M.V. Mahesh (2003) 3 SCC 353 and Matias Kashyap vs. State of Assam- 1997 (4) Crimes 410. In all these cases the Supreme Court held that if a fact is already known to the police, the subsequent recovery on the basis of information purported to have been given by the accused, would not be admissible evidence. 11. In all these cases the Supreme Court held that if a fact is already known to the police, the subsequent recovery on the basis of information purported to have been given by the accused, would not be admissible evidence. 11. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellant argued that third circumstance used against the accused is that deceased Anita @ Chandra Kanta died due to strangulation. But that circumstance by itself does not prove that she was strangulated by accused-appellant Teekamchand. It is nobody's case that it was a homicidal death nor does anybody say that it was not suicidal death. But the million dollar question is whether it was the accused-appellant Teekamchand, who committed her murder and there is no evidence to prove this fact, either direct or circumstantial evidence. 12. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel, further argued that fourth circumstances relied against the accused-appellants is that the police recovered 'odhani' used to strangulate the deceased and 'phawda' used to dig a pit for burying the dead body of deceased by accused Teekamchand. It has not been proved by conclusive evidence that 'odhani' or piece of 'odhani' was actually used for strangulating deceased. Neither the 'odhani' has been produced in the court nor it was shown to Dr. Ashutosh Srivastava (PW-8) to elicit his opinion on whether the kind of strangulation could have been caused by use of such 'odhani'. 13. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel, argued that `rajai', `phawda' and `odhani', the three articles were recovered vide Exhibit P-22. The site plan of the place of recovery is Exhibit P.19. This site plan substantially corresponds to the site plan of the place of incident Exhibit P.16. Surprisingly when the site plan of the place of incident was prepared (Exhibit P.16), the water tank wherefrom the recovery was made and the lemon tree adjoining thereto, which are indicated in site plan (Exhibit P-19), were not shown. This clearly gives rise to possibility of manipulation of record and the sita plan. If the water tank and lemon tree were there in the lawn, why were they not indicated in the earlier site plan (Exhibit P.16). It is a missing link in the chain of circumstances, thus entitling the appellant to benefit of doubt. 14. This clearly gives rise to possibility of manipulation of record and the sita plan. If the water tank and lemon tree were there in the lawn, why were they not indicated in the earlier site plan (Exhibit P.16). It is a missing link in the chain of circumstances, thus entitling the appellant to benefit of doubt. 14. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel, argued that there is absolutely no evidence of motive against the accused-appellants in as much as the motive, which the prosecution wanted to prove is that, the accused-appellant with a view to marrying Linda, wanted to get rid of his wife Chandra Kanta, has not been proved. Statement of Kailash Chand Sharma (PW.9), father of the deceased, and Geeta Devi, mother of the deceased, are based on hearsay evidence. Murari Lal Sharma (PW.19) has exaggerated in stating that when he reached the house of accused Teekamchand to enquire about Chandra Kanta, they saw an English woman coming out of his house. He failed to give any explanation as to why he did not say so in his statement recorded by the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/3). Obviously, this witness is telling a lie. The other witnesses producing for proving the motive are Upendra (PW.5) and Sushil (PW.6), and both have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story on this aspect. They have stated that they were not aware whether the accused wanted to marry some French woman. It is trite that motive in the case of circumstantial evidence assumes significance. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Unless the motive is proved, the accused-appellant cannot be held guilty. 15. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel, further argued that the fact about recovery of the dead body vide Exhibit P-23 at the instance of accused Teekamchand, has not been specifically put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The question has not been put to him with reference to information allegedly given by accused-appellant. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Hari Ram Soni (PW.21) stated that Teekamchand was arrested vide Ex.P/17 and he gave the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/23, on the basis of which Ramu was arrested vide Ex.P/18. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Hari Ram Soni (PW.21) stated that Teekamchand was arrested vide Ex.P/17 and he gave the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/23, on the basis of which Ramu was arrested vide Ex.P/18. This question is completely vague and does not convey to the accused as to what are the contents of Exhibit P-23, the information given by accused Teekamchand under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, for recovery of dead body of deceased Chandra Kanta against the accused-appellant. Even his arrest was shown vide Ex.P/17 at 12.45 pm on 6.5.2003, therefore there was no possibility of his accompanying the accused in the morning. This has caused serious prejudice to the accused in as much as trial against him has been vitiated on that account. Learned counsel for the appellants in this connection relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 732, Ajay Singh vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 548 and Shaikh Maqsood vs. State of Maharashtra - (2009) 6 SCC 583 . 16. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellants, argued that the statement of Om Prakash Sharma (PW.1) cannot be relied against accused-appellants, specially against accused-appellant Ramu Nayak because what he has stated is that in the night around 9.00 pm when he was going to answer the call of nature, he saw a camel outside the house of Teekam and one person was standing near the camel but due to darkness he could not recognize him. A person, who was coming from inside the house of Teekam, was carrying some object wrapped with `chaddar'. They were loading the same on the camel. He could not recognize even that second person on account of darkness. This statement has been relied by the trial court whereas it is an absolutely vague statement. 17. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges. 18. Per contra, Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that number of circumstances are proved against the accused-appellants which form a complete chain in itself to point toward the guilt of the accused-appellants. 17. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges. 18. Per contra, Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that number of circumstances are proved against the accused-appellants which form a complete chain in itself to point toward the guilt of the accused-appellants. He argued that merely because some of the witnesses have stated that the police along-with accused went to the place of incident in the morning at 8.00 pm, would not disprove the recovery of the dead body which was exhumed after digging the earth in the evening. It was innocuous statement by this witness that the police went to search the dead body in the jungle even in the morning. But, mere search by the police does not mean that dead body was actually recovered. Recovery of the dead body was made at the place pointed out by the accused after he gave information under Section 27 of the evidence Act. 19. Upendra (PW.5), in whose hotel French lady was staying, has categorically stated that accused Teekamchand used to often visit her. Murari Lal Sharma (PW.19) has stated that when they reached the house of the accused, he saw the English lady coming out of his house. Kailash Kumar Sharma (PW.9) father of the deceased, has stated that accused wanted to marry the French lady and therefore he wanted to divorce the appellant. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that deceased after all was the wife of the accused-appellant Teekamchand and she was living with him, therefore, presumption arises that he alone had the knowledge as to what happened to her. Learned Public Prosecutor in this connection referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As regards the alleged vagueness of the question put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to Exhibit P-23, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the question was specifically put and accused fully understood the same and therefore responding by stating that it was wrong. If he did not understand the question, he should have asked for the clarification. Learned Public Prosecutor, in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Others vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation- (2011) 6 SCC 1 (Para 77 and 78). It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor, in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Others vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation- (2011) 6 SCC 1 (Para 77 and 78). It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 21. We have given out thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 22. Kailash Kumar Sharma (PW.9), father of the deceased, has stated that on 5.5.2003 he received a phone call from an unknown person around 6.00 pm that his daughter and two grand daughters were not being seen for last 2 days and that in the night of 4.5.2003 Ramu Nayak (co-accused-appellant) had carried certain object wrapped with `bistar' on his camel cart from the house of accused-appellant Teekamchand. He reached Pushkar along-with his brother-in-law Subhash Sharma on 6.5.2003, elder brother Murari Lal Sharma, wife Geeta Devi Sharma, son Roop Kishore Sharma, sister-in-law (bhabhi) Kaushlya Devi Sharma. In Pushkar, they went to the house of Teekamchand, who was found sleeping. He was awakened. This witness asked Teekamchand as to whereabout of his daughter. Teekamchand showed ignorance. Kailash Kumar pressurized him to give information about his daughter, her two daughters started to weeping. Then they took accused Teekamchand to police station Pushkar. This witness has also proved the recovery of blouse, petticoat, sari vide Exhibit P.9. This witness also stated that in Exhibit P.14 whatever he stated regarding accused Teekam, his brother Mukesh and English lady, was correct. Similarly, Geeta Devi (PW. 11), mother of the deceased, stated that she visited the house of her daughter two months ago and her daughter told that her husband has kept an English woman and wanted to divorce her. But she still wanted to live with him and expressed her will to live in his name and survive by working as a labourer. It was in the evening on 5.5.2003 that a phone call was received by her that her daughter was missing for last three days. Anand Sharma (PW.15) has stated that it was Teekam who informed to the police that he murdered Chandra Kanta and Ramu Nayak was also involved in this. Madan Lal (PW.16) has stated that he recovered two blankets from the water tank and one piece of `odhani' at the instance of accused Teekam. 23. Anand Sharma (PW.15) has stated that it was Teekam who informed to the police that he murdered Chandra Kanta and Ramu Nayak was also involved in this. Madan Lal (PW.16) has stated that he recovered two blankets from the water tank and one piece of `odhani' at the instance of accused Teekam. 23. Subhash Bhardwaj (PW.10) has stated that accused Teekam had told them that deceased Anita @ Chandra Kanta had gone to Ajmer two-three days before, but he pleaded ignorance as to where she gone. Accused Teekamchand gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P.23 at 1.00 pm, about the place where dead body of deceased Anita @ Chandra Kanta was buried, stating that he and co-accused Ramu Nayak had buried deceased Anita @ Chandra Kanta and can get her dead body recovered. Co-accused Ram Nayak was arrested at 2.00 pm on that very day, who also gave similar information vide Exhibit P.24, about the dead body of deceased Chandra Kanta. Sahin Ali (PW.7), who was at the relevant time posted as S.D.M., Ajmer, has stated that he reached Pushkar around 2-2.30 pm and he went with the police and accused to the place where accused had buried the dead body of deceased Chandra Kanta. Dead body was exhumed by digging the earth. Father of the deceased was also present there, who identified the dead body of Chandra Kanta. Photography and videography of the dead body was also got done. Inquest of the dead body was Exhibit P.7. The police sealed the clothes of the deceased vide Exhibit P.9 and seizure memo of the dead body was prepared vide Exhibit P.10. 24. In so far as accused-appellant Teekamchand is concerned, the circumstances that have been proved against him, form a complete chain pointing the finger of suspicion towards him and none else, for murder of his wife Chandra Kanta. However, evidence against accused Ramu Nayak cannot be said to be so strong or convincing as to bring home his guilt by required degree of proof. There are many missing links which breaks the chain of circumstances against him entitling him to the benefit of doubt. However, evidence against accused Ramu Nayak cannot be said to be so strong or convincing as to bring home his guilt by required degree of proof. There are many missing links which breaks the chain of circumstances against him entitling him to the benefit of doubt. The recovery of piece of `odhani' which was used for strangulating the deceased was also made at the instance of accused Teekamchand vide memo Exhibit P-22, who gave the information for recovery of `odhani' of deceased used for strangulating her and `phawda' used for digging a pit to bury the dead body. Those articles were recovered vide memo Exhibit P-22. This recovery has been proved by Madan Lal (PW.16), therefore, even if Neeru (PW.22) has turned hostile, the recovery would still have to be taken as proved. The motive of the murder has also been proved against accused Teekamchand that he wanted to marry a French woman and for doing so, he had to first get rid of deceased Chandra Kanta. Hari Ram Soni (PW.21), the investigating officer, in his cross-examination, has stated that during investigation he obtained certain documents showing that accused Teekamchand wanted to marry the French lady Linda. Though, no such documents have been produced, even then it reinforces the factum of motive against accused Teekam. The mother of deceased has also stated that accused wanted to marry some English lady. 25. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram - 2000 Cr. LJ 2457, has held that it is not necessary for a motive to be proved by conclusive evidence. Even a suggestion as to the existence of motive would suffice the reason which may have moved the accused into committing the crime. The Supreme Court therein has held as under:- "We are unable to concur with the legal proposition adumbrated in the impugned judgment that motive may not be very much material in cases depending on direct evidence whereas motive is material only when the case depends upon circumstantial evidence. There is no legal warrant for making such a hiatus in criminal cases as for the motive for committing the crime. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence. There is no legal warrant for making such a hiatus in criminal cases as for the motive for committing the crime. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence. The question in this regard is whether a prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or even whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit. No doubt, if the prosecution proves the existence of a motive it would be well and good for it, particularly in a case, depending on circumstantial evidence, for, such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it cannot be forgotten that it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the respondent. Even if the Investigating Officer would have succeeded in knowing it through interrogations that cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by law." 26. There are basically three circumstances that are used against co-accused Ramu Nayak. The first circumstance is the statement of Om Prakash Sharma (PW.1), who has stated that in the night around 9.00 pm when he was passing by the house of Teekam, he saw a camel there. One person was standing close to the camel. He could not see as to who he was because it was a dark night. He saw another person coming out of the house of Teekam. This second person carried some object which was enwrapped in a bed-sheet (`chaddar'). He could not even see this person. They were loading that object on the camel. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the person, who was standing close to the camel was accused Ramu Nayak and that he talked to him. Another significant circumstance is recovery of the dead body of deceased Chandra Kanta on the basis of his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This information was recorded at 1.00 pm vide Exhibit P-23. Accused Ramu Nayak was arrested at 2.00 pm vide Exhibit P-18 and the information purported to have been given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, was recorded at 2.10 pm vide memo Exhibit P-24, informing that he and his friend Teekamchand had buried the body of his deceased wife in jungle closed to Butbye. Accused Ramu Nayak was arrested at 2.00 pm vide Exhibit P-18 and the information purported to have been given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, was recorded at 2.10 pm vide memo Exhibit P-24, informing that he and his friend Teekamchand had buried the body of his deceased wife in jungle closed to Butbye. Once similar information had already been recorded in Exhibit P-23 at the instance of co-accused Teekamchand at 1.00 p.m. the police had already the information pursuant to which ultimately the recovery of dead body was made, the same information could not have again was recorded at the instance of Ramu Nayak. To that extent, the investigation appears to have tainted. Both the informations could not be used only for discovery of one fact, which in this case was the recovery of the dead body. 27. Third circumstance against Ramu Nayak is that Narbada Devi (PW.13) has, in cross-examination, stated that Shivraj told her that Teekam and Ramu Nayak had carried some object enwrapped in quilt on camel. This witness has been declared hostile because she has not stood by what she stated before the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In any case her statement on this aspect was hearsay evidence. Shivraj (PW.14) has not stated so. He too has been declared hostile. His statement is that only efforts were made to trace out the dead body in jungle even in the morning. Although Hari Ram Soni (PW.21) denied such suggestion stating that he had gone to see such place in the morning around 10.30 am. But the fact is that it is the information given by accused Teekamchand which led to recovery of dead body, otherwise police had no other clue about the place where the dead body was buried. The conviction of accused Ramu Nayak thus stand on a very shaky ground. 28. But the fact is that it is the information given by accused Teekamchand which led to recovery of dead body, otherwise police had no other clue about the place where the dead body was buried. The conviction of accused Ramu Nayak thus stand on a very shaky ground. 28. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kamla- AIR 1991 SC 967 and State of Karnataka vs. M.V. Mahesh (2003) 3 SCC 353 , there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down therein but ratio of those judgment possibly, in the light of the evidence in the present matter, can apply only to the case of Ramu Nayak and not to accused Teekamchand, whose information under Section 27 of the evidence Act was recorded earlier in point of time. Since the place of burial of the dead-body was already disclosed by accused Teekamchand much before similar information was recorded in the name of co-accused Ramu Nayak, subsequent information vide Exhibit-P-24 attributed to co-accused Ramu Nayak, cannot be treated as a subject matter leading to discovery of new fact. 29. Contention that the circumstances of the information recorded at the instance of accused Teekamchand under Section 27 of the evidence Act stating that he could take the police to the place where he along-with co-accused Ram Nayak, buried dead body of Chandra Kanta on which basis Ram Nayak was arrested has not been specifically put to either of the accused, therefore, the defence of the accused was prejudiced thereby, is only noted to be rejected. The argument is that mere reference to the information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-23) has been made and its contents have not been stated therein. The circumstance thus was put to the accused appellants in a very vague manner which has seriously prejudiced their defence and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. Similar question was framed at the instance of accused Ramu Nayak vide memo Exhibit P-24 but the contents thereof were not specifically stated in the earlier information recorded vide Exhibit P-23 at the instance of accused Teekamchand and subsequent question with reference to Exhibit P-24 information recorded at the instance of accused Ramu Nayak. Similar question was framed at the instance of accused Ramu Nayak vide memo Exhibit P-24 but the contents thereof were not specifically stated in the earlier information recorded vide Exhibit P-23 at the instance of accused Teekamchand and subsequent question with reference to Exhibit P-24 information recorded at the instance of accused Ramu Nayak. In the subsequent question it is specifically stated that on what basis the dead body was exhumed in the presence of accused and other witnesses and inquest of the dead body was prepared vide Exhibit P-7. Apart from the fact that these questions having complete particulars were framed in continuity, which made mention of eventual recovery of the dead-body, the earlier question framed on the basis of statement of Om Prakash (PW.17), that the dead body was recovered in the presence of the accused, and labour hired by the police for digging the land stating that they had dug the earth and got the dead body recovered. In totality therefore it cannot be said that there was any such vagueness in the circumstances put to the accused, as can be said to have occasioned any prejudice to him to for that matter, failure of justice. 30. The ratio of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants, supra, therefore cannot applied to the present case. 31. The Supreme Court in Shobhit Chamar and Another vs. State of Bihar- (1998) 3 SCC 455 , after relying previous case law on the subject, on this aspect has made following observations, "24. We have perused all these reported decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the parties and we see no hesitation in concluding that the challenge to the conviction based on non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC first time in this appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellants demonstrate that the prejudice has been caused to them. In the present case as indicated earlier, the prosecution strongly relied upon the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses and relevant questions with reference to this evidence were put to the appellants. If the evidence of these witnesses is found acceptable, the conviction can be sustained unless it is shown by the appellants that a prejudice has been caused to them. No such prejudice was demonstrated before us and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants." 32. If the evidence of these witnesses is found acceptable, the conviction can be sustained unless it is shown by the appellants that a prejudice has been caused to them. No such prejudice was demonstrated before us and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants." 32. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Supreme Court subsequently in Satyavir Singh Rathi, supra. In Para 77 and 78 their Lordships observed as under:- "77. In Shobhit Chamar case - (1998) 3 SCC 455 , this Court observed, (SCC p. 465, para 24)." "24. We have perused all these reported decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the parties and we see no hesitation in concluding that the challenge to the conviction based on non-compliance, of Section 313 CrPC first time in this appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellants demonstrate that the prejudice has been caused to them. In the present case as indicated earlier, the prosecution strongly relied upon the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses and relevant questions with reference to this evidence were put to the appellants. If the evidence of these witnesses is found acceptable, the conviction can be sustained unless it is shown by the appellants that a prejudice has been caused to them. No such prejudice was demonstrated before us and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants." These observations proceed on the principle that if an objection as to the Section 313 statement is taken at the earliest stage, the court can make good the defect and record an additional statement as that would be in the interest of all but if the matter is allowed to linger on and the objections are taken belatedly it would be a difficult situation for the prosecution as well as the accused. 78. In the case before us, as already indicated, the objection as to the defective Section 313 statements had not been raised in the trial court. We must assume therefore that no prejudice had been felt by the appellants even assuming that some incriminating circumstances in the prosecution story had been left out. We also accept that most of the fifteen questions that have been put before us by Mr. Sharan, are inferences drawn by the trial court on the evidence. We must assume therefore that no prejudice had been felt by the appellants even assuming that some incriminating circumstances in the prosecution story had been left out. We also accept that most of the fifteen questions that have been put before us by Mr. Sharan, are inferences drawn by the trial court on the evidence. The challenge on this aspect made by the learned counsel for the appellants, is also repelled." 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of conviction of accused-appellant Teekam Chand. His appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, charge for offence under Section 201 IPC against co-accused Ramu Nayak, on the basis of evidence adduced in the case, cannot be taken to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus entitling him to benefit of doubt. His appeal is accordingly allowed. He is acquitted of the aforesaid charge. He is on bail and need not surrender. Both the appeals stand disposed of. 34. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Ramu Nayak in Appeal No. 801/2004 is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.