JUDGMENT : Vimla Jain, J:- Appellants preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.8.2004 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.43/2004, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Provision Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. It is not in dispute that Chandrawati (since deceased) was married to accused/appellant No.1 Suraj. Accused/appellant No.2 Kedarnath is her father-in-law whereas Balakdas (PW.4), Shankarlal (PW.5) and Amardas (PW.6) are her brothers. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.6.2003 at about 6:30 pm, accused Kedarnath had given an oral information at Police Station Amarkantak, District Shahdol that he is a resident of Village Karondi of Police Station Rajendragram. His son Suraj Chandrawanshi (accused/appellant No.1) was serving in Kalyan Ashram and was living in Van Udyan, Amarkantak alongwith his wife Chandrawati. As he was unwell, he had come to the house of his son Suraj at Amarkantak in connection with his treatment before 10–12 days. His daughter-in-law Chandrawati, wife of accused Suraj, was also suffering with fever for about 3–4 days and her treatment was going on at Kalyan Ashram, Amarkantak. On 10.6.2002, his son Suraj had gone to the hospital to perform his duty whereas her daughter-in-law Chandrawati was at home. He (Kedarnath) was feeding his younger grand son in an other room whereas Chandrawati was sleeping next to the room of his daughter and son-inlaw. He had seen Chandrawati sleeping at about 11 am and after about one hour, when he again saw Chandrawati, she was not there. When accused Suraj returned from the duty at 12 pm, he also tried to search his wife. In the evening at about 4:30 pm, he went to the well in connection with her search, put the KANTA with rope in the well and pulled out the dead body of the deceased from the well. On the basis of the information, Head Constable Mangal Prasad (PW.3) had registered Marg Intimation (Ex.P/4) and the investigation commenced by Station House Officer Ashok Kumar Mishra (PW.10). He immediately alongwith staff proceeded towards the spot. He had found dead body in PARCHHI of room of appellants. He prepared Inquest Panchnama (Ex.P/6) in presence of the witnesses. On the basis of the information, Head Constable Mangal Prasad (PW.3) had registered Marg Intimation (Ex.P/4) and the investigation commenced by Station House Officer Ashok Kumar Mishra (PW.10). He immediately alongwith staff proceeded towards the spot. He had found dead body in PARCHHI of room of appellants. He prepared Inquest Panchnama (Ex.P/6) in presence of the witnesses. As the death of Chandrawati was suspicious, her dead body was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Amarkantak. Spot map (Ex.P/11) was prepared. Postmortem of dead body was performed vide Ex.P/1 by Dr.S.K.Singh (PW.1), who opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia resulting from compression of chest and blockage of air passage. During investigation, it had come in the evidence that Suraj and Kedarnath (husband and fatherin- law of deceased) used to make demand of Motorcycle and compensation amount received on her father's death from Chandrawati and when she could not fulfill their demand, they committed her murder and with intention to disappear the evidence threw her dead body into a well of Shaskiya Udyan. Crime under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused persons and first information report Ex.P/13 was reduced in writing. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Copy of FIR was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajendragram, District Anuppur. The accused persons were arrested. 4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajendragram, District Anuppur, who committed the case to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Shahdol and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 1st Additonal Sessions Judge, Shahdol for trial. 5. On being charged with the offence under Sections 498-A,306, 304-B, 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty, complete innocence and claimed to be tried with the prayer that they had been falsely implicated in the case. 6. In order to bring home the charges against the appellants, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and proved the documents (Ex.P/1 to P/17) on record. The appellants did not examine any witness in support of their defence. 7. 6. In order to bring home the charges against the appellants, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and proved the documents (Ex.P/1 to P/17) on record. The appellants did not examine any witness in support of their defence. 7. The learned Court below, after scanning the evidence found the charges proved against the appellants under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them as hereinabove stated. However, the Court below did not find the charges proved against the appellants under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted them from the aforesaid charges. 8. This appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has committed an error of law in holding the appellants/accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He has prayed that appeal of accused/appellants deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence. 10. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State has supported the finding of the trial Court. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. PW.1 Dr.S.K.Singh conducted the postmortem of deceased Chandrawati vide Ex.P/1 and found following injuries on her person:- EXTERNAL INJURIES ''Rigor mortis was gone. Face, neck and chest were bluish in colour. Dependant part back of the body was slight bluish in colour and echymosed. Eyes were closed. Both eyes congested and hemorrhage blood present over right eye. Antemortem abrasion present over supra orbital region 1 cm X ½ cm. Another antemortem abrasion present over infra orbital left side region 1 cm X 1 cm with clotted blood. There was P.M abrasion over right side zygomatic region about 1 cm X 1 cm. There was clotted blood present over both nasal cavity and over upper lip. Both lips were slight bluish in colour. Mouth was half opened and upper teeth seen. Tongue was bitten. Anterior 1/3 lateral margin of tongue and kept inside oral cavity. Slight smelling present. Slight brownish colour abrasion present over iliac crest right side 5 cm X 3 cm. No other external injury seen over body. Fingers of both hands were flexed, congested at carpal joint. Nails were caganosed of both hands and rest NAD. Tongue was bitten. Anterior 1/3 lateral margin of tongue and kept inside oral cavity. Slight smelling present. Slight brownish colour abrasion present over iliac crest right side 5 cm X 3 cm. No other external injury seen over body. Fingers of both hands were flexed, congested at carpal joint. Nails were caganosed of both hands and rest NAD. INTERNAL INJURIES Congested dark colour blood present over lower part of trachea. Right lung pale and congested. Left lung pale and congested. Small amount of blood present over right and left side chamber of the heart. Opinion:- The cause of death asphyxia resulting from compression of chest and blockage of air passage. It is homicidal in nature. Period between death and postmortem examination 24–48 hours.'' 13. There is no challenge from any side to the fact that death of deceased Chandrawati was homicidal in nature. PW.1 Dr.S.K.Singh found injuries on her person and she died due to asphyxia resulting from compression of chest and blockage of air passage. Therefore, it is apparent that injuries caused on her person were fatal in nature and sufficient to cause her death in due course. Therefore, looking to the nature of injuries, death of deceased Chandrawati appears to be homicidal in nature. 14. The prosecution version essentially rested on circumstances. The trial Court found that the circumstances were sufficient to hold the accused/appellants guilty. 15. The Apex Court in C.Chenga Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193 , observed thus :- “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.......”. 16. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.......”. 16. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Versus State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Apex Court took the view that where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime, they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram vs State of H.P, it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with ''Khukhri'' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 17. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh reported in (2003) 11 SCC 271 , the Apex Court quoted with approval from Stirland Vs. 17. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh reported in (2003) 11 SCC 271 , the Apex Court quoted with approval from Stirland Vs. Director of Public Prosecutions [(1944) AC 315)] thus:- ''If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty main does not escape. Both are public duties.'' 18. There is no dispute that deceased was the wife of appellant No.1 Suraj Chandrawanshi and she had been living with him. It is also not disputed that appellant No.2 Kedarnath is father-in-law of deceased and he had been there at the time of incident. On his information, Marg Intimation (Ex.P/4) had been registered by Head Constable Mangal Prasad (PW.3). 19. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the death of deceased was accidental. He submits that there is possibility that when deceased fell down in the well, her Sari and Petticoat would have wrapped around her mouth, nose and ears. In such a situation, she died as a result of asphyxia and thus water could not be found in her abdomen. 20. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants because in this case there is nothing on record to show that the dead body of deceased was pulled out from the well. Even appellant No.2 Kedarnath in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied this fact that he had pulled out the dead body of deceased. PW.12 S.C.Raikwar, SDOP had proved Inquest Panchnama (Ex.P/6) where it is mentioned that ''e`frdk ds jgk;yh dejs dh ijNh esa 'ko j[kk x;k FkkA'' It is only a conjecture that the deceased died because her Sari and Petticoat were wrapped over her mouth, nose and ears in the well. 21. Appellant No.2 Kedarnath had informed the Police Station, Amarkantak that ''? XXX XXX XXX is no evidence where they were searching the deceased. 21. Appellant No.2 Kedarnath had informed the Police Station, Amarkantak that ''? XXX XXX XXX is no evidence where they were searching the deceased. There is also nothing on record to show that appellant No.2 Kedarnath knew that the deceased was in the well. This conduct of appellants and the cumulative effect of the circumstances, in our opinion, indicate the guilt of the appellants. 22. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes great importance but in the present case, prosecution did not prove motive for committing the crime. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment in the case of State Through CBI Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya { AIR 2011 SC 1017 }, wherein Their Lordships were pleased to observe thus:- ''Where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the material produced before the Court, the motive loses its significance. But in cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes great importance. In such circumstances, absence of motive would put the Court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence very closely to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof.'' 23. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar { AIR 1994 SC 2420 }, wherein Their Lordships were pleased to observe thus:- ''Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime.'' 24. Coming to the contention relating to the motive; Balakdas (PW.4), who is a brother of deceased Chandrawati, in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, has stated that his father had expired in an accident as a result of fall at the time when he was working in a Dam and Rs.30,000–35000 was awarded by the Labour Court by way of compensation for his death. In paragraph 3 of his statement, he deposed that his sister Chandrawati was married 3-4 years' prior to the death of his father. He used to go outside and whenever he used to return home, he always got a news that in-laws of Chandrawati were not allowing her to come to her father's house. He did not know as to why her in-laws were not allowing her to come to her father's house. He further stated that 2–3 marriages have been performed in his uncle's house and invitations have been sent to her in-laws but the accused persons did not send Chandrawati. 25. Shankarlal (PW.5), who is a cousin of deceased Chandrawati, in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief, has stated that the compensation, which was awarded due to the death of the father of Chandrawati has been deposited in the name of Chandrawati and her brother. Chandrawati had told him that her husband Suraj always asked to withdraw the money of compensation deposited in her name in the bank but she did not agree to give it to him. 26. Amardas (PW.6), who is also a brother of deceased Chandrawati corroborated the statement of Shankarlal (PW.5) and stated that after the death of his father, his mother had received an amount of Rs.35,000/-. His mother had deposited Rs.10,000/- in his favour as well as Rs.10,000/- in favour of Chandrawati in a fixed deposit in the bank. 26. Amardas (PW.6), who is also a brother of deceased Chandrawati corroborated the statement of Shankarlal (PW.5) and stated that after the death of his father, his mother had received an amount of Rs.35,000/-. His mother had deposited Rs.10,000/- in his favour as well as Rs.10,000/- in favour of Chandrawati in a fixed deposit in the bank. In paragraph 2 of the examination-in-chief, he stated that his sister used to tell him that her husband was insisting her to deposit money in his favour. He further stated that when accused Suraj had come to know about the money deposited in her favour, he became greedy and started demanding money. 27. The above-said statements of witnesses show that appellant No.1 Suraj Chandrawanshi wanted to withdraw the money of compensation deposited by the deceased but deceased did not want to give it to him. This was the motive of the incident proved by the prosecution. 28. It is true that motive is important in case of circumstantial evidence but it does not mean that in all cases of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution has been unable to satisfactorily prove the motive, its case must fail. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. As is said correctly the men may lie but circumstances do not. 29. The medical evidence disclosed that on the body of deceased, antemortem abrasion was present over supra orbital region 1 cm X ½ cm and another antemortem abrasion was present over infra orbital left side region 1 cm X 1 cm with clotted blood. The cause of death was asphyxia resulting from compression of chest and blockage of air passage. It was homicidal in nature. Period between death and postmortem examination was 24–48 hours. 30. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C did not offer any plausible explanation as to how deceased received injury, which was found on her body. In the absence of any explanation by the appellants about the circumstances in which wife of appellant No. 1 Suraj Chandrawanshi died coupled with the fact that appellants were living with the deceased, the circumstances enumerated above are inconsistent with their innocence and unerringly point to the guilt of the appellants. 31. For the above-said reasons, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants cannot be accepted. 32. 31. For the above-said reasons, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants cannot be accepted. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kapildeo Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar { AIR 2008 SC 533 }, Ramachami Vs. State Rep. By State Prosecutor { AIR 2009 SC 712 }, State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhote Lal and others {2012 CRI.L.J 1214}, State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla and others { AIR 2012 SC 2123 } and Bishnupada Sarkar and another Vs. State of West Bengal { AIR 2012 SC 2248 }. The facts and circumstances of both these precedents are clearly distinguishable from those of this case in hand, therefore, both these authorities do not help the appellants. 33. As discussed above, the judgment of the trial Court is based on correct appreciation of the evidence placed on record. The chain of circumstances is clearly proved by the prosecution, therefore, this appeal fails and conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the Court below are hereby confirmed. 34. This appeal is dismissed being without merit. The order of suspension of sentence of appellant No. 2 Kedarnath by granting ad-interim bail on 22.3.2005 during pendency of this criminal appeal stands vacated. Appellant No. 2 Kedarnath is directed to surrender before the trial Court for undergoing remaining part of the jail sentence. Appeal is dismissed.