Judgment P.V. Hardas, J. The Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- in default of which to undergo S.I. for one year, R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which to undergo S.I. for six months and R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default of which to undergo S.I. for three months, by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by Judgment dated 18.06.2004, in Sessions Case No.507 of 2001, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus:- PW-11, P.I. Surendra Deshmukh, who was attached to Police Station Jejuri, District Pune on 21.07.2001, recorded the report of PW-1 Amol in respect of his mother and his brother Abhijit being missing from the house since 16.07.2001. On the same day i.e. on 21.07.2001, the Appellant – Accused No.1 Bhagwan was brought to the Police Station by PW-1 Amol and others. Accordingly, the missing report at Exhibit 15 was recorded and registered as Missing Report No.10 of 2001. During the interrogation of the Appellant, Appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place where the dead bodies of deceased had been thrown in the agricultural field. Accordingly, a memorandum at Exhibit 47 was drawn in the presence of the panch witnesses. Subsequent to the drawing of the memorandum, the Appellant led the police and the panch to the house of Accused No.2 and thereafter, led the police and the panch to the agricultural field of one Dnyandeo Sonba Shitole at Patas. The Appellant led the police and the panch to the sugarcane crop and pointed out the place where the dead body of deceased Abhijit was lying. A pair of chappals was also noticed lying near the dead body of Abhijit. The Appellant then led the police and the panch to land of Kashinath Kokate at Patas and pointed out the place in the sugarcane crop where the dead body of deceased Alka was lying. They noticed an umbrella, a bag, ladies chappal and four toe rings lying near the dead body of deceased Alka. The Appellant then led the police and the panch to land of Kashinath Kokate at Patas and pointed out the place in the sugarcane crop where the dead body of deceased Alka was lying. They noticed an umbrella, a bag, ladies chappal and four toe rings lying near the dead body of deceased Alka. Accordingly, a panchnama at Exhibit 48 was drawn and the articles found at the scene of the incident were seized. The dead bodies were identified to be the dead bodies of deceased Alka and deceased Abhijit. An inquest panchnama of the dead body of deceased Abhijit was drawn at Exhibit 49 and the inquest panchnama of the dead body of deceased Alka was drawn at Exhibit 50. Since the dead bodies were decomposed, the Medical officer was requested to conduct the post-mortem at the scene of the incident itself. After the completion of the post-mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were seized under seizure memos at Exhibit 51. Since the evidence disclosed the commission of offence by the Accused, PW-11 – P.I. Surendra Deshmukh lodged his report on behalf of the State at Exhibit 61. On the basis of the report at Exhibit 61 an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 403 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. was registered against the accused vide Crime No.66 of 2001. The Accused was accordingly arrested at about 10.30 p.m. Statements of witnesses were recorded during 22.07.2001 to 03.08.2001. During custodial interrogation, the Appellant expressed his willingness to point out the shops of the goldsmith at Village Baramati and Nira in Pandharpur Taluka where ornaments had been sold. Accordingly, a memorandum at Exhibit 52 was drawn in the presence of panchas. The Accused, thereafter, led the police and the panch to the shop of the jeweller viz. PW-5 Shankar from whom a photocopy of the receipt at Exhibit 36 was seized. The Appellant then led the police and the panch to the jewellery shop of PW-4 Shantikumar at Neera from where a golden chain (Article 14) and a nose pin were seized. The Appellant then led the police and the panch to the jewellery shop of PW-6 Anil from whom a necklace (Article 15) was seized. A panchnama was accordingly drawn at Exhibit 53. Further, to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the Accused was filed. The Appellant then led the police and the panch to the jewellery shop of PW-6 Anil from whom a necklace (Article 15) was seized. A panchnama was accordingly drawn at Exhibit 53. Further, to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the Accused was filed. Post-mortem on the dead bodies of deceased Alka and Abhijit was made by PW-8 Dr. Raut. He noticed, a rope around the neck of the deceased which was used in strangulating the deceased. According to him, death might have occurred before 8 to 10 days of the post-mortem examination. He therefore opined that cause of death of deceased was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. Post-mortem report of deceased Alka is at Exhibit 44. PW-8 Dr. Raut also conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Abhijit, a 13 years old child. He opined that deceased might have died 8 to 10 days prior to the post-mortem examination. He could not give any cause of death as the body was highly decomposed. The post mortem report of Abhijit is at Exhibit 45. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court, vide Exhibit 3 framed charge against the Accused for offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w. 34, 201 r/w. 34 and 392 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The Accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. The defence of the Accused was of denial. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforestated while acquitting Original Accused No.2 Kaka. 3. In order to effectively dealt with submissions advanced before us by Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, learned Counsel appointed for the Appellant and the learned APP, it will be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. PW-1 Amol states that the deceased Alka was his mother while deceased Abhijit was his elder brother. He states that he was running a juice stall which was seasonal near the S.T. Bus Stand at village Nira. He states that he used to do agricultural work when the stall was not functioning. He states that his uncle Dilip was residing at Village Murti, Taluka Baramati while his another uncle Ashok is residing at village Neera. He states that he was running a juice stall which was seasonal near the S.T. Bus Stand at village Nira. He states that he used to do agricultural work when the stall was not functioning. He states that his uncle Dilip was residing at Village Murti, Taluka Baramati while his another uncle Ashok is residing at village Neera. He states that his uncle Vijay who was residing in the house adjoining to his house was missing since last three and half years. During this period, his uncle i.e. wife of his uncle Vijay was residing alongwith her two sons in the house of PW-1 Amol. Accused No.1 Bhagwan is the brother of Kalpana, wife of his uncle Vijay. During this period, the Appellant used to visit the house of his sister Kalpana and was also assisting them in the search for Vijay, who was missing. PW-1 Amol states that the Appellant was searching for Vijay with the help of mother of PW-1 Alka. 5. PW-1 Amol further states that on 15.07.2001, the Appellant had halted during the night at their house and had informed Alka about finding of Vijay and requested her to accompany him for bringing him back. Accordingly, on 16.07.2001, the Appellant accompanied by deceased Alka and deceased Abhijit left the house in search of Vijay. PW-1 Amol states that his brother and his mother did not return home. On the next day, at about 4.00 p.m., the Appellant alone returned to the house and when he was inquired by PW-2 Shilpa about the whereabouts of the deceased, the Appellant had replied that they would return shortly. The Appellant thereafter went away. Since the deceased Alka and Abhijit did not return home, PW-1 Amol started his search for his mother and his brother. However, their whereabouts were not noticed. On 21.07.2001, Amol went to the house of brother of the Appellant and noticed the Appellant in the house of his brother at Village Zargarwadi. With the help of his other relatives, they took the Appellant from Village to the Zargarwadi to the Jejuri Police Station where PW-1 Amol lodged his complaint at Exhibit 15. He states that his mother was wearing a red coloured saree with strips when she had left the house. She was wearing a green coloured petticoat and white coloured blouse. She was carrying an umbrella and a bag of chocolate yellow coloured. He states that his mother was wearing a red coloured saree with strips when she had left the house. She was wearing a green coloured petticoat and white coloured blouse. She was carrying an umbrella and a bag of chocolate yellow coloured. She had worn a necklace around her neck and a nose pin, ear rings, chain and toe rings. He has identified the ornaments (Articles 13 to 15) as the ornaments belonging to his mother. He has also identified the saree, petticoat and the blouse to be the articles which were worn by his mother. Similarly, he has also identified the toe rings (Article 15) as the one belonging to his mother. He has identified the cloths worn by the deceased Abhijit. He further states that the dead body of his mother and brother were brought to the house in the night between 21.07.2001 and 22.07.2001. He states that he had learnt subsequently that the Appellant had committed their murder. 6. He has been cross-examined at length and he has admitted that the marriage of his aunt Kalpana, sister of the Appellant, was solemnized with his uncle Vijay about 8 to 13 years prior to incident. He has admitted that Vijay was addicted to liquor. An omission is sought to be proved that he had not stated in his complaint that the Appellant when he had halted for night had informed Alka about tracing the whereabouts of Vijay. On perusal of the First Information Report, we find that PW-1 Amol had indeed stated so in his report at Exhibit 15. It is further elicited in the cross-examination that the Appellant had informed Alka that Vijay had been found and he has to bring him back. Omission has been proved though he has not stated that the mother wearing the ornaments when she had left alongwith the Appellant. He has further stated that he had been informed by his mother deceased Alka about the illicit relations between the Appellant and his sister Kalpana. 7. Prosecution has examined PW-2 Shilpa, who also states about her mother Alka and brother Abhijit accompanying the Appellant for bringing back Vijay. She further states that on the next day the Appellant had came alone to their house and inquired to the Appellant about whereabouts of the mother and brother and the Appellant had replied that they would come shortly. Prosecution has examined PW-2 Shilpa, who also states about her mother Alka and brother Abhijit accompanying the Appellant for bringing back Vijay. She further states that on the next day the Appellant had came alone to their house and inquired to the Appellant about whereabouts of the mother and brother and the Appellant had replied that they would come shortly. She also states that her mother Alka was knowing about the illicit relations between the Appellant and his sister Kalpana. She has also identified the ornaments worn by her mother deceased Alka. 8. In cross-examination she has admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the illicit relations between Kalpana and the Appellant. In fact, it is elicited in the cross-examination that on one occasion she had seen the Appellant and Kalpana sleeping together in the house. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that she had seen them sleeping together during the night. She has admitted that both of them were wearing their clothes. Apart from this, nothing of substance has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW-2 Shilpa. 9. Prosecution has examined PW-3 Ashok, brother of deceased Vijay who was missing and brother of husband of deceased Alka. He too states about his sister-in-law deceased Alka and her son Abhijit accompanying the Appellant for bringing back Vijay who had been missing since last three years. He states that he had met the Appellant at Village Zargarwadi on 21.07.2001 and had inquired from him about the whereabouts of Alka and Abhijit but the Appellant had given evasive answers. He states that on that day he took the Appellant to the Jejuri Police Station. He also states that the Appellant had discovered the dead body of deceased Alka and Abijit though this witness has been cross-examined, nothing of substance has been elicited by this cross-examination. 10. Prosecution has also examined PW-10 Vilas, neighbour of deceased Alka. He states that the wife of Vijay was residing alongwith her children in the house of deceased Alka. He states that on the date of incident he had seen deceased Alka and deceased Abhijit in the company of the Appellant. In the cross-examination it has been elicited that he had seen the Appellant accompanied by Alka and Abhijit proceeding towards the Neera Road. 11. He states that on the date of incident he had seen deceased Alka and deceased Abhijit in the company of the Appellant. In the cross-examination it has been elicited that he had seen the Appellant accompanied by Alka and Abhijit proceeding towards the Neera Road. 11. Prosecution has examined PW-4 Shantikumar, a jeweler who had stated that the Appellant had come to his shop for weighing a nose pin and a piece of gold chain. He states that on weighing the ornaments he had found them to weigh 1.5 grams and accordingly, had paid the Appellant Rs.630/-. He states that he had issued a receipt at Exhibit 31 which is a photocopy. He states that he had produced both the ornaments to the police when the Appellant had come alongwith the police. He has identified the articles as Article 14 that is a nose pin and a piece of golden chain. 12. Prosecution has also examined PW-5 Shankar, who states that the Appellant had sold two ear rings. He states that he had produced the ear rings which he has identified as article 13 and has produced the receipt at Exhibit 36. Prosecution has also examined PW-6 Anil, who states that the Appellant had sold him a golden necklace weighing 4.5. grams and he had accordingly paid Rs.2230/-to the Appellant. He had produced the necklace which is at Article 15 before the police. He has identified the Appellant as the same person who had sold him the necklace. 13. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged before us that the evidence of last seen is primarily a weak piece of evidence and the prosecution has not been able to establish the findings against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP has urged for dismissal of the Appeal as the prosecution has proved the findings beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The evidence of the prosecution clearly disclosed that at the behest of the Appellant the dead bodies of deceased Alka and Abhijit were found in the sugarcane field. Apart from the Appellant, no other person was knowing the exact place where the dead bodies lying. This, therefore, according to us, is a very strong piece of substantial evidence against the accused. Apart from the Appellant, no other person was knowing the exact place where the dead bodies lying. This, therefore, according to us, is a very strong piece of substantial evidence against the accused. Apart from that, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Amol, PW-2 Shilpa, PW-3 Ashok and PW-10 Vilas, who have proved that on the day of the incident the Appellant had left the village accompanied by deceased Alka and Abhijit. The prosecution has also established that the Appellant had stayed at the house of Alka and had enticed her by stating that the whereabouts of Vilas were known and requested her to accompany him in order to bring him home. The Appellant has sold the ornaments which were worn by deceased Alka to the jewellers who have been examined as prosecution witnesses. From the possession of the jewellers, stolen articles that is the ornaments belonging to deceased had been recovered. Thus, there is strong evidence against the Appellant which proves the involvement of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record therefore leads to an irresistible conclusion that it is the Appellant and Appellant alone who had committed the murders of deceased Alka and Abhijit. 15. However, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the I.P.C., we find that there is no evidence that the Appellant had removed the ornaments when deceased Alka was alive. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, offence punishable under Section 392 of the I.P.C. is not made out. Similarly, there does not appear to be any evidence which would indicate that the Appellant had caused disappearance of any evidence. The conviction of the Appellant, therefore, under Section 201 of the I.P.C. is also not justifiable. However, there is strong evidence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and we have therefore no hesitation in confirming his conviction and sentence. 16. Accordingly, this Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 392 and 201 of the I.P.C. is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid offence. Fine if paid by the Appellant in the aforesaid offence be refunded to him. We dismiss the Appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.