ORDER Convicted for offence under Section 302/120B IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with fine of Rs. 2000/- and further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, also convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC, punished with a sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment, imposed with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated 30.7.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kekri, District Ajmer, both the appellants, Ashok Kumar Vaishnav and Smt. Nidhi Sharma have approached this court. While Ashok Kumar has filed Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 2004, Smt. Nidhi Sharma has filed Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2004 before this court. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment. According to the prosecution, on 28.4.2003 at 5:15 PM Police Station Sawar received a telephonic information that there is a burnt and decapitated head lying near pillar No. 11 on the dry bed of Banas River; there are rumors that on the outskirts of the village Jaswantpura, near the main road, in a well belonging to one Bajrang Nai, there is a bundle floating in the well. There is a terrible smell emanating from the well; near a bridge (pulia) at a place called Ara Ki Neemdi a few blood stained clothes were lying. When the police asked the informant about his name and address, he disconnected the phone. According to the SHO, Mr. Surendra Singh (PW-44), since the information was an incomplete one, he informed the Circle Officer, Kekri over the phone about having received the said information. Mr. Surendra Singh (PW-44) along with Om Prakash, Dharam Singh, Jugal Kishore and driver Hansraj, left for the Banas River. At pillar No. 11, on the dry river bed, they discovered a burnt head of man. They also discovered a jute bag, a plastic bag, which had blood upon it. Two kilometers away from the Banas River towards Sawar at a place called Ara Ki Neemdi, they discovered a blood stained full sleeve shirt, a blood stained pillow-cover, a blood stained plastic table-cover, and two blood stained plastic kattas (plastic bags). Subsequently, they went to the village Jaswantpura to the well belonging to Bajrang Nai. In his well, they noticed a bundle floating on the top. Subsequently, they went to the village Jaswantpura to the well belonging to Bajrang Nai. In his well, they noticed a bundle floating on the top. Although the villagers Raju, Ramesh (PW1), Badri and Mukesh had already gathered there, the SHO called some of the passer-byeRs. Taking their help and using a rope, which is commonly used in a charpai, and using an iron hook (bilai), he pulled the bundle out of the water. They discovered that two bed-sheets were tied together, which contained a body of a naked man who had been burnt at places and whose head had been cut off. They also noticed that his intestines were coming out and the corpse was reeking of foul smell. They also noticed inside the well that there was an oily substance floating on top of the water. Considering these telltale signs of the decapitated head, of the decapitated body, and blood stained clothes, the police concluded that some unknown person had killed this person and had cut off his head; in order to make the evidence disappear they had burned the head, and the body at places; someone had thrown the head at one place, thrown the blood stained clothes at another, and the headless body at the third place. Mr. Surendra Singh (PW-44) also got the different places photographed. The police concluded that it is a case of offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. They recovered the different items the head, the headless body, the blood stained clothes, and other blood stained objects mentioned above. They transported the head and the body to the Govt. Hospital, deposited them at the mortuary, and left Dharam Singh, a Constable, at the mortuary. They came back to the police station, whereupon on the basis of the report a formal FIR (Ex.P-52), namely FIR No. 27 of 2003 was chalked out for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC by Mr. Surendra Singh (PW-44) and the investigation commenced. Further, according to the prosecution on 29.4.2003 the SHO closely examined the burnt head. He discovered that below the left eye there was a steel wire. The body and the head were handed over for post-mortem. The Medical Board handed over the steel wire to the police after the post-mortem was performed. The steel wire was recovered through Recovery Memo (Ex.P-7). After the post-mortem, the body was cremated. He discovered that below the left eye there was a steel wire. The body and the head were handed over for post-mortem. The Medical Board handed over the steel wire to the police after the post-mortem was performed. The steel wire was recovered through Recovery Memo (Ex.P-7). After the post-mortem, the body was cremated. Subsequently, the police published information in the local newspaper that they had discovered a burnt head which had a steel wire below his left eye. Having read this news item, Durga Prasad (PW-37) [the father of the deceased], Smt. Nidhi Sharma [the second appellant before this court], Arun Kumar and Vishnu Sharma rushed to the Police Station, Sawar. There the police informed Durga Prasad (PW-37) and others that they had cremated the unknown body, but they had kept the articles recovered by them. They showed them the full sleeve shirt, the pillow-cover, the bed-sheets and the plastic bags. Durga Prasad (PW-37) identified the shirt as that belonging to his son, Bhawani Shankar (the deceased in this case). Smt. Nidhi Sharma identified the shirt as belonging to her husband, and the pillow-cover, the plastic bags, and the bed-sheets as belonging to her house. During the course of investigation, on 6.5.2003 the police arrested both the appellants, Smt. Nidhi Sharma and Ashok Kumar Vaishnav. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against both the appellants for offences under Section 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC. By order dated 14.8.2003 the learned Judge framed the charges against the appellants for offence under Section 120B, 302, in the alternative 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 201 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fifty-one witnesses, and submitted one hundred and nine documents. In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C, the appellants denied the allegation leveled by the prosecution. Smt. Nidhi Sharma claimed that both her in-laws and her brother-in-law (nandoi) want to illegally grab the property which belonged to her husband. Therefore, they have taken the police into confidence, and have falsely implicated her. She further claimed that the keys of the house were taken away by the mother-in-law. Both the appellants further claimed that under police custody they were tortured, and compelled to sign blank pieces of paper. While Smt. Nidhi Sharma did not examine any witness on her behalf, Ashok Kumar examined a single witness, Ganpat Lal (DW-1). She further claimed that the keys of the house were taken away by the mother-in-law. Both the appellants further claimed that under police custody they were tortured, and compelled to sign blank pieces of paper. While Smt. Nidhi Sharma did not examine any witness on her behalf, Ashok Kumar examined a single witness, Ganpat Lal (DW-1). The defense submitted thirty-five documents in its favour. As mentioned above, by judgment dated 30.7.2004 the learned Judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants. Hence, these two appeals before this court. Mr. Biri Singh, learned senior counsel for Smt. Nidhi Sharma, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the deceased. The body was never shown to Durga Prasad (PW37), Nidhi Sharma, Arun Kumar (PW-6) and Vishnu Sharma (PW-10). The entire identity of Bhawani Shankar is based on the spurious evidence of recovery of a steel wire from the burnt and decapitated head, on the testimony of Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah (PW-39), and on the identification done by Durga Prasad (PW-37) and Smt. Nidhi Sharma. However, according to the learned counsel, none of these testimonies and recoveries possibly establish that the dead body and the head recovered by the police belonged to Smt. Nidhi Sharma's husband, Bhawani Shankar. Secondly, Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah (PW-39) is an unreliable witness. Despite the fact that he is a busy plastic surgeon at the Sir Gangaram Hospital in New Delhi, he seems to have remembered that in 1993 he had implanted a steel wire under the eye of Bhawani Shankar. On the basis of his memory, he has, in fact, issued a certificate on 26.5.2003 (Ex.P-49). However, even this certificate is an unreliable one as it is based not on any medical record, but merely on the memory of the witness. Moreover, the prosecution has relied on a bill (Ex.P-48) allegedly issued by the hospital which was submitted by Durga Prasad (PW-37) in order to prove the fact that Bhawani Shankar had undergone plastic surgery in 1993 at the hospital. However, Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah (PW-39) has admitted in his cross-examination that the bill is computer generated, it does not bear the signature of any authorized officer of the hospital, and it does not even indicate name of the patient's father. However, Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah (PW-39) has admitted in his cross-examination that the bill is computer generated, it does not bear the signature of any authorized officer of the hospital, and it does not even indicate name of the patient's father. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that Bhawani Shankar had undergone any plastic surgery operation at the hospital, that a steel wire was inserted below his left eye in order to connect the fronto-temporal bone with the bones of his cheek. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the burnt and decapitated head discovered at the Banas River, actually belonged to Bhawani Shankar. Thirdly, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Maurya (PW-40) has claimed in his testimony that by placing the head and the decapitated body together he had concluded that the head belonged to the decapitated body. But he has not given any scientific reason for his conclusion. Thus, it is merely a personal opinion and not an expert opinion. Such personal opinion has no legal sanctity. Further, such a reconstruction has not been mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P-50). Moreover, the police have not gotten the head superimposed with the body. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the head and the body belonged to the same person. Hence, the corpus delicti in the present case is conspicuously missing. In the absence of the corpus delicti, there is no evidence to prove that the appellants have committed the murder of Bhawani Shankar. Fourthly, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. But all the circumstances do not form a complete chain which unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. Fifthly, the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for Nidhi Sharma to kill her husband, or for Ashok Kumar to kill Bhawani Shankar, whose house he was visiting frequently. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive is a strong link. However, in the present case, the link is conspicuously missing. Sixthly, the prosecution has failed to prove as to when the alleged murder had taken place. According to the prosecution the alleged murder had taken place in the intervening night of 25 and 26 of April, 2003. Yet, Nandu Gujar (P.W. 8), the servant of the deceased, claimed in his testimony that Bhawani Shankar had gone for his morning walk on 26-4-03. According to the prosecution the alleged murder had taken place in the intervening night of 25 and 26 of April, 2003. Yet, Nandu Gujar (P.W. 8), the servant of the deceased, claimed in his testimony that Bhawani Shankar had gone for his morning walk on 26-4-03. Likewise, Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25), a Lawyer, had claimed that Bhawani Shankar had come to him in the second week of May, 2003 for legal advice. Thus, naturally, Bhawani Shankar could not have been murdered in the intervening night of 25/26-4-2003. Seventhly, Durga Prasad (P.W.37) has admitted in his cross-examination that he had filed civil suits against Nidhi Sharma over the property of his deceased son. In her statement under 313 Cr. P.C., Nidhi Sharma had clearly claimed that her in-laws have falsely implicated her in the present case as there was a dispute with regard to Bhawani Shankar’s property. Thus, Nidhi Sharma is a victim and not the culprit she is made out to be. Eighthly, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the recoveries made by the police. However, the recoveries are doubtful. According to the police Nidhi Sharma and Ashok Kumar were arrested on 6-5-03. However, according to Durga Prasad (P.W.37), Nidhi Sharma had gone with him to the police station. According to Bhawari Devi (P.W.43), the mother of the deceased, Nidhi Sharma was detained by the police on 4-5-03 itself. This clearly proves that Nidhi Sharma was in police custody from 4-5-03 till 6-5-03 when she was formally arrested. Interestingly, all the statements made by the two appellants under Section 27 Evidence Act have been made one after the other. Thus, they are joint statements. Moreover, curiously, the series of statement made under Section 27 Evidence Act and the recovery memos would clearly show that the statements and the recoveries are made within short period of one or two hours. This is rather surprising as many of the recoveries are made from the house of Nidhi Sharma. One would expect all the recoveries to be made together, instead of in piecemeal manner. This is rather surprising as many of the recoveries are made from the house of Nidhi Sharma. One would expect all the recoveries to be made together, instead of in piecemeal manner. Ninthly, many of the recovery witnesses have claimed that their signatures were taken either under duress by the police, such as Gulab (P. W. 21) and Malla (P. W. 26), or that they were asked to sign blank pieces of papers, such as Gulab (P. W. 21), or that the recovery memos were signed in the police station, such as Jagdish (P. W. 22), Sheoji (P. W. 23), Ved Prakash (P. W. 45), Hari Singh (P. W. 46). Many of these witnesses have given these statements in their examination-in-chief; yet, the prosecution has not declared them as hostile witnesses. Hence, the prosecution is bound by their testimonies. Others have been shattered in their cross-examination. Either way, these witnesses have diluted the prosecution case. A few recovery witnesses, such as Baalu (P. W. 14), Hansraj (P. W. 19), Ashok Tak (P. W. 20), have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution. But even then, the learned Judge has relied on these recoveries in order to convict the appellants. Tenthly, there are glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case: according to Bhawari Devi (P. W. 43) when Durga Prasad (P. W.37), the father of the deceased, and other relatives, including Nidhi Sharma, went to the Police Station, Nidhi Sharma had locked the house and taken the keys with her. Further, when Bhawari Devi (P. W.43) went to Nidhi Sharma’s house on 4-5-03, she found the house locked. If the keys continued to be with Nidhi Sharma, then the prosecution has failed to explain as to how did the police open the house on 7-5-03? Eleventh, there are certain inconsistencies in the investigation: according to the prosecution the Forensic Science Laboratory Team had visited Nidhi Sharma’s house on 7-5-03 and had inspected the Baleno car. It had also inspected the house, where allegedly the murder had occurred. Yet, it did not find any tell-tale signs of the murder taking place in the house on 7-5-03. But on 8-5-03, when Veer Singh (P. W. 51) visited the same house, he discovered blood stained mattresses, blood stained wooden parts of the bed, blood stained floor. It had also inspected the house, where allegedly the murder had occurred. Yet, it did not find any tell-tale signs of the murder taking place in the house on 7-5-03. But on 8-5-03, when Veer Singh (P. W. 51) visited the same house, he discovered blood stained mattresses, blood stained wooden parts of the bed, blood stained floor. Likewise, despite the fact the house was thoroughly searched on 8-5-03, yet subsequently incriminating evidence is said to have been discovered on 18-5-03 and 19-5-03. These subsequent discoveries clearly prove that this incriminating evidence was planted by the police. Hence, these recoveries should be disbelieved by the court. The prosecution has not proven the blood group of the deceased. Merely on surmises and conjectures it is claiming that the blood group of the deceased is ‘A’. Moreover, it has not eliminated the possibility that the appellants too may have the same blood group as has been found on the shirt of the deceased, or on the mattresses, the pillow, the marble floor, on the wood from the bed. Thus, the FSL reports (Ex. P. Nos. 106 and 107) do not connect the appellants to the alleged offence. Twelfth, Veer Singh (P. W. 51), the second Investigating Officer, is an unreliable witness. As he has either evaded the questions, or answered them contrary to the documentary evidence. His testimony clearly proves the lackadaisical manner in which the investigation has been carried out. Hence, the learned Judge has erred in relying open his testimony. As far as Ashok Kumar is concerned, besides echoing the arguments of Mr. Biri Singh, Mr. N.C. Choudhary, the learned counsel for Ashok Kumar, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, there is no connecting evidence against him. The prosecution has failed to prove any relationship between Ashok Kumar and Nidhi Sharma. According to the prosecution, Nidhi Sharma is supposed to have given him her gold chain for killing her husband. However, Nidhi Sharma has not been tried for offence under Section 107 IPC. Instead, Ashok Kumar has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. However, there is no evidence to establish criminal conspiracy between the two appellants. Secondly, there is no motive for Ashok Kumar to commit the murder. According to Nandu Gurjar (P. W. 8) Ashok Kumar was a friend of Bhawani Shankar. Instead, Ashok Kumar has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. However, there is no evidence to establish criminal conspiracy between the two appellants. Secondly, there is no motive for Ashok Kumar to commit the murder. According to Nandu Gurjar (P. W. 8) Ashok Kumar was a friend of Bhawani Shankar. According to Vishnu Prakash Sharma (P.W.24), Bhawani Shankar had sold his Sumo car to Ashok Kumar. Since there was a cordial relationship between Ashok Kumar and Bhawani Shankar, there is no reason why Ashok Kumar would kill his friend. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that Ashok Kumar and Nidhi Sharma had any illicit relationship. Therefore, both wanted to get rid of Bhawani Shankar. In the absence of motive, the entire prosecution case falls apart qua Ashok Kumar. Thirdly, Sitaram (P. W. 27) and Sheoji (P. W. 28) were produced by the prosecution in order to prove that they had seen Ashok Kumar and Nidhi Sharma together, and they had seen them throwing away the blood stained clothes of the deceased, which were later discovered by the police. But both these witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution case. As far as the recoveries are concerned, the learned counsel has adopted the arguments of Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar. Hence, they need not be mentioned by this court. On the other hand, Mr. Dhakar, the learned Public, has made the following submissions: firstly, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the identity of the deceased as Bhawani Shankar. On 4-5-03, it is his wife and father, Nidhi Sharma and Durga Prasad, respectively who have identified the shirt of the deceased. Moreover, she had also admitted that the bed-sheets, the table cloth, the jute bag, the plastic bags all belong to her house. Thus, she has not only identified the shirt as belonging to Bhawani Shankar, but has also identified the other articles as belonging to her house. Since at moment she was not the accused, her statement can be read against her. Secondly, Durga Prasad (P. W.37) and Bhawari Devi (P. W.43) have claimed that Bhawani Shankar had met with an accident in New Delhi. He was admitted to Sir Gangaram Hospital. Due to his accident, the bones of his face had become dislocated. Thus, Dr. Since at moment she was not the accused, her statement can be read against her. Secondly, Durga Prasad (P. W.37) and Bhawari Devi (P. W.43) have claimed that Bhawani Shankar had met with an accident in New Delhi. He was admitted to Sir Gangaram Hospital. Due to his accident, the bones of his face had become dislocated. Thus, Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah (P. W. 39) had to fix a steel wire below his left eye, in order to connect the front bone of his skull with the cheek bone. According to Surendra Singh (P.W.44) when the head was discovered, since the skin was burned, a steel wire was visible below the left eye. According to Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40), a steel wire was extracted from the head during the post-mortem. It was handed over to the police by recovery memo (Ex.P.7). According to Dr. Shiv Shankar (P.W.39) he had, indeed, performed the said plastic surgery in 1993 and had inserted a steel wire for the aforesaid function. Thus, the head clearly was that of Bhawani Shankar. Thirdly, according to Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40), when he had performed the post-mortem, he had placed the head and the body together in order to see if they belonged to the same person. In his testimony he gives scientific basis for concluding that the head and the body did belong to the same person. Hence, the identity of the deceased is well established. Fourthly, Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40) has also given the cause of death. Therefore, Bhawani Shankar had suffered a homicidal death. Fifthly, although the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25), the lawyer, Bhawani Shankar had come to him asking him to file a complaint against his wife, Nidhi Sharma, as he and his children felt that their lives were threatened by her. Mr. Narendra Kumar (P. W.29) has also corroborated this fact that a criminal complaint was filed by Bhawani Shankar against Nidhi Sharma. The lawyer has also revealed that both the husband and the wife had come to his office and asked him to draft a petition for divorce on the basis of mutual consent. He had drafted a petition and given it to them. The lawyer has also revealed that both the husband and the wife had come to his office and asked him to draft a petition for divorce on the basis of mutual consent. He had drafted a petition and given it to them. Durga Prasad (P. W. 37) and Bhawari Devi (P. W.43) have also claimed that Bhawani Shankar was treated cruelly by Nidhi Sharma. They have also adverted to the causes of the dispute between the two. Bhawani Shankar’s personal diary (Article 14) also reveals his plight as a husband. Thus, Nidhi Sharma had strong differences with her husband. She had reasons for getting rid of her husband. Hence, the motive to kill does exist. Nandu (P. W. 8), Rameshwar (P. W.35) also reveal the close relationship which had developed between Nidhi Sharma and Ashok Kumar. Hence, they had a common cause for getting rid of Bhawani Shankar. Hence, the motive for the gruesome murder has been established by the prosecution. Sixthly, as far as the recoveries are concerned, although some of the witnesses have turned hostile, others have supported the prosecution and proven the recoveries. Hence, the recoveries are well established. Seventhly, Nidhi Sharma and Ashok Kumar were arrested on 6-5-03. As and when they gave statements under Section 27 Evidence Act, recoveries were made. There is neither anything enigmatic, nor unusual about the recoveries. Even if a few lacunae can be found in the investigation, the lapses in the investigation cannot be read in favour of the accused persons. Eighthly, the recoveries are further corroborated by independent witnesses like Balmukud (P. W.12) and Smt. Krishna (P. W.31). Smt. Krishna has clearly stated that she was called by Nidhi Sharma to her house and asked to mop a few rooms. When she asked Nidhi Sharma as to how blood spots were on the floor, she told the witness that it was mere ‘color’. Balmukund (P. W. 12) has also corroborated the testimony of Smt. Krishna. The recoveries within the house, the testimony of independent witness clearly establish that Bhawani Shankar was killed in the house. Ninthly, according to Durga Prasad (P. W.37) and Bhawari Devi (P. W.43), Bhawani Shankar had come to their house on 25-4-03, had dinner with his mother; he informed his parents that he has safely reached home. The recoveries within the house, the testimony of independent witness clearly establish that Bhawani Shankar was killed in the house. Ninthly, according to Durga Prasad (P. W.37) and Bhawari Devi (P. W.43), Bhawani Shankar had come to their house on 25-4-03, had dinner with his mother; he informed his parents that he has safely reached home. According to these two witnesses, the couple’s two children, Panchi and Captain, were dropped off by Nidhi Sharma at her brother’s house. Hence, in the intervening night of 25/26-4-03, Bhawani Shankar was all alone at his house with Nidhi Sharma. After 26-4-03, he was not seen by anyone. Thus, it is for Nidhi Sharma to explain as to what became of Bhawani Shankar after he was last seen at home. Yet, she has failed to explain the whereabouts of Bhawani Shankar. Her silence reveals her guilt. Tenthly, according to Bhawari Devi (P. W.43) when she went to Bhawani Shankar’s house in the morning on 26-4-05, she found Nidhi Sharma disturbed. When she asked about her son’s whereabouts, Nidhi told her that “he is fast asleep”. When Durga Prasad (P. W.37) and Bhawari Devi (P. W.43) went to his house a little later, she told them that “he had gone for a walk”. Thus, she offered two different and wrong explanations for his non-presence in the house. These false explanations are a linking evidence against her. Eleventh, according to the FSL Reports (Exs. P. 106 and 107) the pillow, the pillow cover, the bed-sheets, the wooden pieces taken from the bed, the marble pieces from the floor, the blouse of Nidhi Sharma, the pant of Ashok Kumar, the recovered axe, all have blood group ‘A’ on them. Since blood group ‘A’ belonged to the deceased, it is for the appellants to explain the presence of blood group ‘A’ on their clothes. Yet they have not offered any explanation. Thus, an adverse inference should be drawn against them. Thus the Prosecution has connected each link of the chain in order to unerringly point to the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Heard Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant Ashok Kumar, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. G.S. Shekhawat, for the complainant. Also examined the record and considered the impugned judgment. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Heard Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant Ashok Kumar, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. G.S. Shekhawat, for the complainant. Also examined the record and considered the impugned judgment. Admittedly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The rule governing appreciation of evidence in case based on circumstantial evidence is not only well known, but has also been reiterated by the Apex Court recently in the case of Balkar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (13) Scale 63. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” Therefore, these principles would have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence before this court. Bhawari Devi (P.W.43), the mother of the deceased, in her examination-in-chief tells the court that “last year, on 25th of April, Bhawani Singh came to her house and from the courtyard called her out. He not only asked her whether she had made the dinner, but also asked her what she had made for the dinner. When she told him that she had made “mirchi ke tipore” (cut and fried green chillies) and Daal (lintel), he asked her to serve the dinner. After finishing his dinner, he left the place. When her husband, Durga Prasad, came back home and while they were having their dinner, they got a telephonic call from Bhawani Shankar who informed them that he has reached his house safely. After finishing his dinner, he left the place. When her husband, Durga Prasad, came back home and while they were having their dinner, they got a telephonic call from Bhawani Shankar who informed them that he has reached his house safely. He also told them that since the children have been sent away, Nidhi and he are all alone in the house.” She further claimed that “she had received her Income Tax Card which she had gone to drop off at Bhawani Shankar’s house on 26th April after visiting the temple. When she reached his house, the main gate was open. But the main shutter of the house was locked; only the wooden door in the shutter was open. When she rang the bell, Nidhi came out. Her eyes were red, her hair were disheveled. At least four to five times Nidhi inquired as to why this witness had come so early in the morning.” According to this witness, “she asked Nidhi as to why her eyes were red? Nidhi told her that last night your son and I came very late.” She further claimed that “when she told Nidhi that she wanted to speak to Bhawani about the income tax card, Nidhi told her that he is sleeping. Nidhi took the card from her without opening the shutter, but by extending her hand through the wooden gate.” According to her, “she came back to her house. She told her husband that she had gone to Bhawani’s house to give the card; she told her husband that since Bhawani was sleeping, she had left the card with Nidhi. Her husband asked her as to why she had given the card to Nidhi; they should go and pick-up the card from Nidhi.” Further according to her, “when Nidhi heard the sound of their Vicky (a moped), she came out. Her husband asked her as to why she has taken the card? Nidhi told her husband 'you do not have to shout, come inside the house'. They both went inside the courtyard; they noticed that each room of the house was locked. Her husband asked her as to why she has taken the card? Nidhi told her husband 'you do not have to shout, come inside the house'. They both went inside the courtyard; they noticed that each room of the house was locked. When her husband asked her as to where Bhawani is, Nidhi told him that he had gone out for his morning walk.” Durga Prasad (P.W.37) informs the court about the telephone call they had received from Bhawani Shankar on night of 25th April, that he has reached the home safely; he informs the court about the incident as to how on, 26th April his wife had gone to Bhawani Shankar’s house early in the morning, and how he and his wife had gone later in the morning and how Nidhi had behaved with them. He further informs the court that “five or six days after 26th April, he was informed by the people that Nidhi comes to the godown, sells the marble, and takes the money away. However, his son is not coming to the godown. Since he was slightly anxious about his son, he called his son’s house, but was informed that Nidhi is at the godown. Therefore, he called up the godown to talk to Nidhi. Nidhi asked him to come down to the godown, but he refused to do so. Nidhi told him that Bhawani will be back. Still anxious about his son, he inquired from other people over the phone whether they had heard from Bhawani, or not? People told him that neither they have heard from him, nor has he come to them. They asked him to find out the whereabouts of Bhawani.” Further according to this witness, “on 4th May, 2003, he read in the newspaper that a decapitated body could not be identified by the police. He further read that on the right wrist, there was a “Moli” (a sacred thread tied to the wrist), and according to the news item, while performing the post-mortem, the Doctors had discovered a steel wire below the left eye on the side of the face. According to them, the person must have undergone some surgery for his facial bones.” According to him “having read this news item, he became more worried. According to them, the person must have undergone some surgery for his facial bones.” According to him “having read this news item, he became more worried. Therefore, he called up his other three sons, his son-in-law, Arun Kumar, and his daughter-in-law, Nidhi, and asked them to come to his home. But Nidhi did not come to his house. Subsequently, he, Arun Kumar, Vishnu and Nidhi left for the police station, Sawar. Before leaving, Nidhi locked up all the rooms of her house, and took the keys with her. When they reached the Police Station, they informed the police about the news item and that their son is missing for the last eight days. He was informed that the police had cremated the dead body, but had kept the articles recovered from the body which they could show them. The police showed them a blood stained full sleeves bush shirt, which was checkered and had the word “Nakoda” written upon it.” According to him, “he recognized the shirt. And Nidhi told the police that the shirt belonged to her husband. They also showed them a Khakhi colored pillow cover. The said pillow cover was also blood stained. Nidhi recognized the Khakhi pillow cover. Subsequently she also recognized a plastic bag, a table cover which had flowers and leaf upon it, a cement plastic bag, a bed sheet as belonging to her house.” Further, according to this witness, “an identification of an unknown dead body memo (Ex.P.9) was signed by him, by Nidhi Sharma, by Arun Kumar Bora and Vishnu Sharma.” He also informs the court that “the police showed him a steel wire which was given to the police by the Doctor while performing the post-mortem. He told the police that Dr. Shiv Shankar Saha had implanted the said wire in the face of his son in order to connect the left side the cheek bone and the frontal bone of the head. When police asked him as to where this operation had been done, he told the police that the said operation had been done at Sir Gangaram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, Delhi. They asked him whether he could have the police speak to the said hospital; he told that in case they could call the hospital, he would ensure that they could speak to Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah. Both police and he spoke to Dr. Shah. Dr. They asked him whether he could have the police speak to the said hospital; he told that in case they could call the hospital, he would ensure that they could speak to Dr. Shiv Shankar Shah. Both police and he spoke to Dr. Shah. Dr. Shah told the police that in fact, he had implanted the steel wire about eleven years ago in Bhawani Shankar’s face. According to him, after these proceedings, the police kept the clothes in a sealed bag. When the bush shirt (Article-5) was shown to this witness in the court, he recognized the bush shirt as the one which he was shown in the police station. He also recognized the pillow cover (Ex.P.11), he also proved Ex.P.9 (the identification memo of an unknown body).” Dr. Shiv Shankar (P.W.39) in his examination-in-chief tells the court that “he is a consultant plastic surgeon at Sir Gangaram Hospital, New Delhi.” According to him, “he remembers having operated upon Bhawani Shankar in order to fix the leefort three fractures of the maxilla. In order to fix this fracture, he had to do inter-maxillary wiring.” He further claimed that “at the time of the operation, he had inserted a wire. He had identified the wire (Article-4) as the wire that had been used by him.” In his cross-examination, he admits that “he has done numerous operations of the kind carried out on Bhawani Shankar.” However, he clarifies that “he remembers Bhawami Shankar’s operation in particular as Bhawani Shankar and his father, Durga Prasad kept on visiting him and kept in touch with him even after two years of the said operation.” He further tells the court that “even the police had spoken to him about the said operation.” According to Surendra Singh (P.W.44), the Investigating Officer, “during the course of the post-mortem, the Medical Officer had recovered a steel wire from the decapitated head. The said steel wire was discovered below the left eye. It was recovered by Exhibit-P.7.” He further claimed that “on 4.5.2003, Durga Prasad, Smt. Nidhi Sharma had come to the police station where both of them had identified the recovered clothes and the other articles shown to them.” According to him, “Exhibit-P.9 was signed by Arun Kumar, Vishnu Kumar, Durga Prasad and Nidhi. It was recovered by Exhibit-P.7.” He further claimed that “on 4.5.2003, Durga Prasad, Smt. Nidhi Sharma had come to the police station where both of them had identified the recovered clothes and the other articles shown to them.” According to him, “Exhibit-P.9 was signed by Arun Kumar, Vishnu Kumar, Durga Prasad and Nidhi. This witness also identified the bush shirt (Article-5), the pillow cover (Article-11) and the bed sheet (Article-10).” As far as identification of the body is concerned, the most important witness is Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40). He tells the court that “on 29.4.2003, he was the Medical Officer in the Govt. Hospital, Kekri. He was one of the members of the Medical Board along with Dr. Ram Gopal Jaiswal.” According to him, “at 10.00 AM, the Medical Board had conducted an autopsy on an unidentified male aged about 25-30 years.” According to him, “the head was severed from the corpse; the corpse was decomposed and had a foul smell imitating from it. The neck was cut with a sharp edged weapon. The head was totally severed from the body. There was a discoloration of yellow green color on the entire body. At places, blisters had occurred. The skin could be peeled off easily. Both the head and the body had maggots. The head, the face and the left leg had partially deep burns. The eye balls were missing. The ear had shriveled due to burns. The lower jaw was exposed as the muscles had been burnt. The face was burned and was blackish in color. The left frontal bone could be seen as whitish. The hair was singed.” Further, according to him, “a steel wire, which was bent, was recovered from the lateral margin of the left orbit. The left upper part of the trunk had sharp edged injuries. Both the injuries were 10x3 cm. bone deep. On the left side of the chest, there was another sharp edged injury. The stomach also had a sharp edged injury 15 cm. long. Due to this injury, the intestines were coming out. Another sharp edged injuries measuring 6x2 cm, bone deep, was located on the left ankle.” Moreover, according to this witness, “he had taken the twisted wire out and had given it to the SHO. The steel wire was about 1¼ inch long. There was a Moli tied on the right wrist. Due to this injury, the intestines were coming out. Another sharp edged injuries measuring 6x2 cm, bone deep, was located on the left ankle.” Moreover, according to this witness, “he had taken the twisted wire out and had given it to the SHO. The steel wire was about 1¼ inch long. There was a Moli tied on the right wrist. The penis and the scrotum were swollen.” Most importantly, according to this witness, “the neck had been completely cut off at the fourth tracheal ring.” According to him, “the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage due to complete cutting of head and neck from trunk. He further identifies the steel wire as Article-4. Having looked at the axe (Article-16), he claims that the sharp edged injuries, found on the dead body, could be caused by the said axe. He proves the post-mortem report (Ex.P.50).” In his cross-examination, he claims that “the blisters had occurred on the body due to decomposition.” According to him, “two injuries sustained by the body shown at I and J places were ante-mortem in nature.” According to him, “looking at the build of the body, sizes of the bones, the formation of the teeth, and the color of hair, the deceased would be in the age group of 25-30 years.” According to him, “the deceased had died within 48 to 72 hours. He had approximated the time of death on the basis of four factors: firstly, the rigorous mortis was not present on the body, secondly decomposition had started at places it was yellow in color, at places it was green in color, thirdly, that foul smell was imitating, fourthly, maggots were present both in the head and in the trunk of the body.” He further claimed that “if the body was in the well for ten days, the entire skin would be peeled off.” He further claimed that “it was not for him to do the superimposition, or the video superimposition, for, that is the work of the investigating agency and of not the medical doctor.” He further claimed that “in order to decipher if the head and the body belonged to the same person, they had reconstructed the body; they concluded that the head and the body belonged to the same person. This conclusion was further fortified by the fact that the vertebra columns sequence between the head and the breast of the body, they discovered that the body must be of a single person. This conclusion was further strengthened by the fact that the head and the feet were burned.” He admitted the fact that “the reconstruction was not written in the postmortem report (Ex.P.50). However, it was not necessary to mention this fact as there was no such column for the mentioning of this fact in the post-mortem report.” He further emphasized the fact that “in post-mortem report, he has clearly recorded that the head was cut off from the level of C-3 vertebra, and from the 4th tracheal ring.” He further explained that “he has not written about the remaining vertebral column or the tracheal ring contained in the body because on Page-2 of the post-mortem report, it was clearly written that the vertebra was cut from C-3 level and there was no vertebra which was missing. Therefore, it was not necessary for him to write that the remaining part of vertebra which formed part of the torso. Moreover, since from the 4th vertebra, it was not necessary for him to mention this fact in Exhibit-P.50.” Furthermore, according to him “there are ten tracheal rings. While the fourth ring is in the skull, the rests are in the body.” He further explained that “in case any vertebra is missing from the body, the said fact has to be noted in the post-mortem report. However, in the present case, no vertebra was missing from the body. Therefore, there was no point of his mentioning the presence of the vertebra.” He denied the fact that “the sharp edged injury on the stomach was due to the escape of gas because of decomposition.” He further denied the fact that “due to advance stage, it was impossible for him to categorize the injuries as sharp edged, or blunt injuries.” According to him, “since the death had occurred 48 to 72 hours, it was easy for him to identify the nature of the injury.” According to him, “it was clear that the injuries were caused with a sharp edged weapon. The left frontal bone was also fused. This clearly indicated that the deceased was in the age group of 25-30 years. The left frontal bone was also fused. This clearly indicated that the deceased was in the age group of 25-30 years. ” He further stated that “it is possible to severe the head with an axe in a single blow. He denied the fact that the head and the body belonged to two different people.” According to him, “both the head and the body belonged to a single person.” During his cross-examination by the counsel for Ashok Vaishnav, he claims that “merely by looking at the head and the trunk, it was obvious at which vertebra level and at which tracheal ring, the cut had been made.” A bare perusal of the testimonies, quoted above, clearly prove that Bhawani Shankar had met with an accident at Delhi, was hospitalized at Sir Gangaram hospital, he had undergone a surgery done by Dr. Shiv Shankar (P.W.39), he had placed a steel wire in order to link the frontal bone with the cheek bone of the left side of the face, the said wire was discovered by Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40) while performing the post-mortem, the said wire was identified both by Dr. Shiv Shankar and by Durga Prasad (P.W.37), the father of the deceased. Moreover, according to Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P. W. 40) , the head and the body belonged to the same person. He had placed the head in the body together to see if the vertebra and the trachea matched or not, which they did. He had also noticed that the head and the feet of the body were burned. Furthermore, both Nidhi Sharma and Durga Prasad (P.W.37) had identified the blood stained full sleeves shirt worn by the deceased. Therefore, even Nidhi Sharma had identified the shirt of her husband. Both these witnesses had signed the identification memo of an unidentified corpse (Ex.P.9). She had also identified the pillow cover, the table cloth, the bed sheets shown to her by the police as belonging to her home. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the fact that the head and the body belonged to the same person and the person who is none other than Bhawani Shankar, Nidhi Sharma’s husband. Lastly, according to Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40), the body not only had sharp edged injuries, but the cause of death was shock due to severe hemorrhage caused by the cutting of the head from the body. Lastly, according to Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W.40), the body not only had sharp edged injuries, but the cause of death was shock due to severe hemorrhage caused by the cutting of the head from the body. Thus, obviously, Bhawani Shankar had died a homicidal death. Therefore, there is no doubt either about the identity of the deceased, or about his homicidal death. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned Senior Counsel, has argued much about the receipt issued by the Sir Gangaram Hospital (Ex. P. 48) and about the certificate issued by Dr. Shiv Shankar (P. W.39), namely Ex. P. 49. However, even if these documents are ignored, even then there is overwhelming oral evidence to positively prove the identity of the deceased as Bhawani Shankar. Thus, the arguments need not detain this court. The learned Senior Counsel has also pleaded that Dr. Rajendra Kumar’s opinion is a personal one with regard to the head and body being of the same person. But even this argument is misplaced. A bare perusal of his testimony, quoted above, clearly shows that he has looked at the position of the tracheal rings, and the position of the vertebra c-3; he has considered the fact that the head and other parts of the body were burned at different places in order to reach his conclusion. Thus, his conclusion is based on scientific reasons and not on his personal opinion. Moreover, he has clarified in his cross-examination that his conclusion has not been mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report as there is no column for noting such a conclusion. Further, he has clarified that the super-imposition of the head and the body should have been done by the investigation agency and is not done by the medical doctors. Hence, the stand taken by the learned counsel of the appellants with regard to the lack of identification of the dead body is unacceptable. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that according to Bhawari Devi (P.W.43) and Durga Prasad (P.W.37), on 25th of April, 2003, Bhawani Shankar informed them that he has reached his house safely and that he is alone with Nidhi in the house. Arun Kumar (P. W. 6), Bhawani Shankar’s brother-in-law, states that around 20-4-2003, Nidhi had dropped off her son, Punchi, at his house on the pretext that she was unwell. Therefore, Bhawani Shankar was all alone with his wife at night. Arun Kumar (P. W. 6), Bhawani Shankar’s brother-in-law, states that around 20-4-2003, Nidhi had dropped off her son, Punchi, at his house on the pretext that she was unwell. Therefore, Bhawani Shankar was all alone with his wife at night. After 25th of April, he was not seen. Thus, under Section 106 Evidence Act, it was for Nidhi Sharma to explain as to what became of her husband, Bhawani Shankar. Yet, during the trial, Nidhi Sharma has not offered any explanation. Her silence on a major issue speaks volumes about her guilt. According to Bhawari Devi (P. W.43), Nidhi Sharma gave two explanations, firstly that Bhawani Shankar is fast asleep; secondly, that he had gone out for a morning walk. Considering the fact that Bhawani Shankar was not seen after the 25th, the explanation given by Nidhi Sharma on 26th morning is a false one. The falsity of the explanation given by Nidhi Sharma is linking evidence in the chain of evidence formed by the prosecution. Of course, Mr. Sinsinwar, the learned Senior Counsel, has harped on the point that according to Nandu Gujjar (P. W.8), he had seen Bhawani Shankar going for a morning walk on the th morning. Moreover, according to Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25), a lawyer in Kishangarh, Bhawani Shankar had met him in the second week of May, 2003. However, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that sense of time is generally not very precise or specific in the human mind. Nandu Gujjar (P. W.8) happens to be an illiterate servant who claims that he was on leave from 16th to 25th of April. He claims that he came back in the night before the 26th. Therefore, the chances do exist that his statement that he saw Bhawani Shankar on the morning of the is off the cuff remark. Further, the testimony of Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25) is unreliable on this point. For, by 4-5-03, Durga Prasad and Nidhi Sharma had identified the shirt as belonging to Bhawani Shankar. Furthermore, by 6-5-03, Nidhi Sharma was arrested. Therefore, obviously Shyam Manohar’s memory about Bhawani Shankar visiting his office in the second week of May, 2003 is incorrect. Therefore, the testimonies of these two witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case. The defense counsel has harped on the lack of motive for the appellants to kill Bhawani Shankar. However, this contention is unacceptable. Therefore, obviously Shyam Manohar’s memory about Bhawani Shankar visiting his office in the second week of May, 2003 is incorrect. Therefore, the testimonies of these two witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case. The defense counsel has harped on the lack of motive for the appellants to kill Bhawani Shankar. However, this contention is unacceptable. For, Durga Prasad (P. W. 37) tells the court that “in the year 1995 the deceased Bhawani Shankar was married to the daughter of Shri Madanlal, Sushila @ Nidhi. At that time, I was told that I have married my son to a wrong person as she will not come up to the standards of my family. But at that time, I did not pay much attention to this fact. She came and stayed with us for two yeaRs. During this period, every day Nidhi would fight with Bhawani that he should call her brother, and ask him to work with him in his marble business as her brother was merely running a provisional store. Tired of her demands, Bhawani called her brother, Jagdish@ Munnalal who came to Kishangarh. From what Bhawani would earn, Nidhi would give sometimes Rs. 50,000 or Rs. One Lakh to her brother Jagdish, and to her mother, Narayani. Bhawani told us all this. When I asked Nidhi as to why she was sending the money, she got mad with us. One day when my son went to the godown, Nidhi’s brother, Munna came with a truck and took away their possessions to Agresen Nagar. In the evening when Bhawani came back, he asked me about Nidhi. I told him that she and her brother Jagdish @ Munnalal have shifted to a rented premise. After that Nidhi, her brother, Jagdish @ Munnalal, her mother, Narayani, lived with them. Nidhi continued to give money to her brother and mother. Bhawani told me that if this practice continued for some more time, he would fall into debts. He asked me to buy him a plot and to construct a house for him. I bought the plot and got the house constructed. Bhawani had invested the money for the construction of the house. After the construction of the plot, at my son’s insistence, I and my wife lived with him for fifteen days. During this period, Nidhi was cruel towards us. I bought the plot and got the house constructed. Bhawani had invested the money for the construction of the house. After the construction of the plot, at my son’s insistence, I and my wife lived with him for fifteen days. During this period, Nidhi was cruel towards us. Unable to bear her cruel behavior, I and my wife shifted back to my old house at Daga Road, Madanganj. After some time, Bhawani told me that he is very disturbed as Nidhi does not permit him to meet his parents. She is constantly spying on me. She gives lakhs of rupees to her parental side. I told him things would improve. But he started to cry. He told me that Nidhi is mentally torturing him. He told me just to serve him food, she asks for money. Just to serve him water, she asks for money. During this period Bhawani’s second son, Sanskar @ Panchi was born. At his name-giving ceremony, no one from our family was invited. Bhawani told me that Nidhi’s brother, sister-in-law (bhabhi), their children and her mother, Narayani have started living with him. He asked me to start meeting him in the market place. We stopped going to his house. On Holi, or Diwali we used to invite him to our home for dinner. Even about this, Nidhi used to fight with us.” Similarly, Bhawari Devi (P. W. 43) claims in her deposition that “Bhawani told her that when he goes home, everyday Nidhi fights with him. When he asks for food, she demands money. When I ask for water, she demands money. She has grown her finger nails, with which she leaves scratch marks on him. He also told her that for three days at a time, Nidhi does not open the door for him when he comes back home from his godown.” By Recovery Memo (Ex.P.13) the police had recovered Bhawani Shankar’s diary (Article-14) from his house. The diary speaks volumes about the mental and physical cruelties heaped upon Bhawani Shankar by his wife, Nidhi Sharma. Durga Prasad (P. W.37) has identified the diary as Bhawani Shankar’s. He has clearly stated that since he taught Bhawani Shankar how to write, therefore, he recognizes Bhawani Shankar’s handwriting. Thus, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the diary. The diary speaks volumes about the mental and physical cruelties heaped upon Bhawani Shankar by his wife, Nidhi Sharma. Durga Prasad (P. W.37) has identified the diary as Bhawani Shankar’s. He has clearly stated that since he taught Bhawani Shankar how to write, therefore, he recognizes Bhawani Shankar’s handwriting. Thus, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the diary. The diary left by Bhawani Shankar is not a continuous one as he has written the diary on different dates leaving certain pages as blank. It is unclear whether the contents of his writing refer to the dates on which the contents were written, or not. Therefore, while quoting from his diary, this court proposes to refer to the page number and in the bracket indicate the date and the day of the week. At Page-134 (Wednesday – May 15, 2002), he has written “since the morning, she is insisting for a divorce. When I refused, she wanted to leave the house. When I tried to stop her, she hit back. I took the telephone number of the court. Since the court was functioning only till 1.00 O’clock, I purposefully whiled away the time. We reached the court at 1.25 P.M. Then we decided to go to the lawyer. We went to the Lawyer and asked him to draft a divorce petition. The Lawyer told us that he will give us merely a draft and if possible, we should give-up the thought of seeking a divorce. He also told us that if we cannot give-up the thought of divorce, then we should come back to him for the final draft. Purohit Ji tried to make us understand that by divorce, we will ruin our lives. She told me that she is going to Jaipur by motorcycle. I asked her not to go. But she left the house without informing. I looked for her at the bus stand, but could not find her. She called up the tea stall lady on the phone, and told her to lock the kids inside the house. I came to know about this from the Chai Wali (the tea stall lady). When I asked her, she said she never gave these instructions. She came back home at 11.00 O’clock at night”. She called up the tea stall lady on the phone, and told her to lock the kids inside the house. I came to know about this from the Chai Wali (the tea stall lady). When I asked her, she said she never gave these instructions. She came back home at 11.00 O’clock at night”. On Page-139 (Monday- 20th May, 2002) Bhawani Shankar has recorded that “today she asked me why I had told her family members about her and about her conduct. She told me that I has ruined her reputation. She threatened that she will go to the police station and lodge a false complaint against my staff. She will lodge a FIR that they do not behave with her otherwise; I should remove my staff and close down my company. I begged her to desist. She told me that only if I remove six to seven persons, will she not take any action. I removed them. This has adversely affected my business. For, parties come, but due to shortage of people, the parties leave. How much work can I do by myself? She does not even cook at home in the evening. Whomever she meets, first she tells them about my bad qualities. Today, I went home early in the evening. I was told that Nidhi had left home in the morning. I made the food. I, Captain and Chhotu had dinner. At night Nidhi did not come. When I tell people at Kuchaman, they do not pay any attention.” On Page-151 (Saturday – 1st June, 2002), Bhawani Shankar seems to indicate that he has some fear that he is being poisoned. For, he writes that “I do not know what they mix in my food. My tongue started twisting. When I told this to the people at home, she said this is merely your misplaced apprehension. I asked them to change the Daal (lintel). When I asked her to eat the Daal served to me, she did not touch it. Instead, she dropped the Daal. This has confirmed my fears.” Further, on Page-154 (Tuesday-4th June, 2002), Bhawani Shankar records that “Ever since I got up in the morning, I found that the gate was locked from outside. I kept on waiting. Then I knocked the doors. Then Chhotu/Captain told me that mummy has gone to the godown to pick-up the money. This has confirmed my fears.” Further, on Page-154 (Tuesday-4th June, 2002), Bhawani Shankar records that “Ever since I got up in the morning, I found that the gate was locked from outside. I kept on waiting. Then I knocked the doors. Then Chhotu/Captain told me that mummy has gone to the godown to pick-up the money. I kept on waiting from 6.00 O’clock in the morning to 4-5 O’clock in the evening. Then I called a person from the house which is under construction. I asked him to get me a telephone from the market. I called up my office and asked them to get me out of my room as I had not eaten anything since the morning, nor brushed since the morning. She told me that she will come back at 9.00 O’clock at night, and only then she will open the door of the room. Then I called the police station. She came back at 6.00 O’clock and opened the door. She went to the police and made false statements. Sahib tried to explain these things to both of us. He told us that life is very long, try to live with love and affection, and whatever is happening within your home, keep it within your house”. Similarly, on Page-166 (Sunday – 16th June, 2002) Bhawani Shankar has written that “this morning when I left home, she told me to come by 10.00 O’clock by night, or else she will lock the gates. I told her that I will try to be back early and in case I will be late, I will call you on phone. Today a party from Sahibabad (U.P.) had come to look at the marble. They left and came back at 4.00 O’clock in the afternoon, and they asked that a Gadi (truck) should be filled with marble. The loading of the truck continued till 8.00 P.M. I tried to get the loading done quickly by 9.00 P.M. I called on the phone and told her that I should be back by 10.00. When I reached home at 9.30 P.M., she told me that she has locked the house, and she will not open the door. I kept on waiting for 15-20 minutes. Then I went to the Housing Board. I kept on calling her from 9.30 till 10.00 P.M. and kept her begging for opening the door. When I reached home at 9.30 P.M., she told me that she has locked the house, and she will not open the door. I kept on waiting for 15-20 minutes. Then I went to the Housing Board. I kept on calling her from 9.30 till 10.00 P.M. and kept her begging for opening the door. I promised her that in future I will keep it in mind. Even then, she did not open the door because there was another boy (Ladka) with her. Fearing that my reputation in the neighbourhood would be adversely affected, I quietly came back to the godown. I telephoned again, but she did not pickup the telephone.” In continuation, on Page-167 (Monday – 17th June, 2002), he has written “today, I went to the godown early and returned back home at 8.00 O’clock because by 8.30 the house is locked. Then I would neither be given any food, nor any water”. On Page-168 (Tuesday – 18th June, 2002), he records that “I slept in a separate room. In the morning after taking a shower, I asked her for milk. She told me that there is no milk. I told her it is all right. I came into the courtyard. She asked me go give her Rs. 25,000/- in cash, otherwise she will start putting the lock on the shutter. I told her that last month, I had given her Rs. 168/-, but she has not given me the account. She told me, she has spent them. When I refused her to give any more money, there was exchange of hot words and abusive language. She scratched my neck and hand with her long nails. She hit me with a lock on my elbow. I went and slept in the courtyard. I left for the godown at 11.00 O’clock for the sake of peace at house. I slept outside the mess on a Charpai. I came back home at 7.00 O’clock in the evening.” These quotations from Bhawani Shankar’s diary clearly reveal the maltreatment meted out to him by Nidhi Sharma, her demand for money, her physical assaults and her irresponsible behavior towards her family. Some of these jottings, such as the drafting of the divorce petition, the scratching left by Nidhi on Bhawani Shankar’s neck and hand are also corroborated by Shyam Manohar (P.W.25), the Lawyer. Some of these jottings, such as the drafting of the divorce petition, the scratching left by Nidhi on Bhawani Shankar’s neck and hand are also corroborated by Shyam Manohar (P.W.25), the Lawyer. Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25) informs the court that “two years before the incident (the alleged murderer), Bhawani Shankar and Durga Prasad had come to him for consulting him in a criminal case. I know them since then. On 14-5-2002, Bhawani Shankar came to him and told him that his and his children’s life is being threatened by his wife. Therefore, Bhawani asked him to take necessary legal steps against his wife. According to what Bhawani told me, I prepared a report for the CI sahib, Madanganj. Bhawani had gotten five copies of this report prepared. He signed all the five copies. One copy he left in my office, the other four he took with him. He went to the Police Station, Madanganj. After fifteen day, Bhawani Shankar came with his wife, and told me that they wanted to file a divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent. On the basis of what they told me, I prepared a draft of the petition. They took the draft with them. After half an hour, I received a call from Bhawani who told me that his wife had gotten off from his motorcycle and had taken the draft with her. I told him, she must have gone to some lawyer. Therefore, he should wait for her. After one year, Bhawani came to my office around May 19-20, 2003 and again told me that his life is in danger from his wife. I told him to wait for a day or two, and then we would do the needful. In May 2003, he again came back and showed me the scratch marks on his face and told me that these were caused by his wife.” In his cross-examination, this witness does admit that “some of the details mentioned by him in the examination-in-chief were told by him to the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. But he does not know why the police did not record these details in his statement.” Moreover, Narendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 29) also corroborates the testimony of Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25). He claims that “on 16-5-02, he was posted as a Police Inspector at Police Station, Madanganj. P.C. But he does not know why the police did not record these details in his statement.” Moreover, Narendra Kumar Singh (P.W. 29) also corroborates the testimony of Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25). He claims that “on 16-5-02, he was posted as a Police Inspector at Police Station, Madanganj. Bhawani Shankar had submitted a complaint. On 20-5-02, the said complaint was sent, against Sushila @ Nidhi under Section 107, 116 (3) Cr. P. C, to the ADM Court. According to the complaint, Bhawani was in danger of his life and property from his wife. In my investigation, I found that there was threat to Bhawani’s life and property from his wife.” Even in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that “It is true that Bhawani’s life and property was in danger from his wife and not from others.” Of course, Nandu Gujar (P. W. 8) claims in his testimony that “he does not know the reason for the fight between Bhawani and Nidhi. But they used to call names to each other. The fight used to be about the fact that instead of paying a salary of Rs. 5000/-, a salary of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid to an employee.” The learned counsel for Nidhi Sharma has made much of this part of Nandu Gujar’s testimony. According to the learned counsel, the fight between the couple was restricted to only business transactions. But in the light of overwhelming evidence quoted above, this argument does not hold any water. Both the testimonies of Bhawani Shankar’s parents (P. W. 37 and P. W. 43), the testimony of Shyam Manohar (P. W. 25)—the lawyer, the testimony of Narendra Kumar (P. W. 29), and most importantly, Bhawani Shankar’s personal diary (Article-14) prove the fact that there were constant fights between the couple over money. There is ample evidence about the maltreatment received by Bhawani Shankar from his wife. Thus, there is ample motive for Nidhi Sharma to kill her husband—a fear voiced by Bhawani Shankar himself. As far as Ashok Kumar is concerned, Nandu Gujar (P. W. 8) tells the court that “Ashok used to visit Bhawani ji’s house. When he used to come home, he would speak to both Bhaiyaji (Bhawani Shankar) and Jiji (Nidhi Sharma). While they would talk, I would carry on the household work. As far as Ashok Kumar is concerned, Nandu Gujar (P. W. 8) tells the court that “Ashok used to visit Bhawani ji’s house. When he used to come home, he would speak to both Bhaiyaji (Bhawani Shankar) and Jiji (Nidhi Sharma). While they would talk, I would carry on the household work. …Nidhi and Ashok used to talk near the car, and in the courtyard.” According to Rameshwarlal (P. W. 35), the jeweler, says that “He knows Nidhi Sharma as she is his customer. She used to often come to his shop. Many a times, Ashok and Nidhi used to come together to his shop.” He further claims that “On April 24, 2003, Ashok brought the gold chain (Article 17) to sell it off at his shop.” Further, Vishnu Prakash (P. W. 24) claims that “he was working in Bhawani Shankar’s godown”. He further states that “When we left the house of Shiv Prasad Mantri, Bhawani told him that he has sold his Sumo car to Ashok, for which we need to pick up the payment from his house. Since we did not know the address of Ashok’s house, Bhawani gave us the directions. I and Shiv Prasad Mantri went to Ashok’s house. ….we asked him about the payment. He said he would pay in two or three days.” Thus, there are hints of Ashok’s relationship with Nidhi Sharma, and testimony about the payment Ashok had to make to Bhawani for the car he had brought from Bhawani. Hence, a motive does exist for Ashok to get rid of Bhawani. Hence, the learned counsels for the appellants are not justified in contending that the motive is conspicuously missing in the case. In fact, the very existence of motive is a further link in the chain of circumstances against the appellants. Before this court turns to the recoveries, let us consider the testimonies of two more independent witnesses who throw light on the case, namely Balmukund (P. W. 12), and Smt. Krishna (P. W. 31). Balmukund tells us that, “His house is 6070 feet away from the house of Nidhi Sharma.” “He knew Bhawani Shankar Sharma. I would often see him coming and going. But after 24-25 of April, 2003 I have not seen him…. Krishna Bagariya used to come to my house to mop and clean the house. Balmukund tells us that, “His house is 6070 feet away from the house of Nidhi Sharma.” “He knew Bhawani Shankar Sharma. I would often see him coming and going. But after 24-25 of April, 2003 I have not seen him…. Krishna Bagariya used to come to my house to mop and clean the house. One day Krishna asked me if she could go to Bhawani Shankar’s house for cleaning the place. I told her she could. She came back after some time and told me that she had been pain Rs. 40/-for cleaning the place….She told me that the ‘bhabhiji’, Nidhi who lives opposite the house had called her to clean up her house.” Smt. Krishna (P. W. 31) states in her examination-in-chief that, “ I used to clean the house of Balmukund Agarwal. I have also cleaned Nidhi Sharma’s house. There were some blood stains which I had mopped. I was paid Rs. 40/- for the job. I had cleaned the basement, the bedroom, and the courtyard. When I asked Nidhi about the blood stains, she told me that color was spilled.” In her cross-examination, she describes some of the rooms of Nidhi Sharma’s house. She talks about the basement. But she admits that “she doesn’t know about the exact sizes of the rooms and the basement.” She further admits that “she neither told the police that she could take the police and show them where she had seen the blood, nor she was taken by the police to the house.” She claims that “she had told the police that she had seen blood stains in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. (Ex. D. 4), but she doesn’t know why the said fact has not been recorded in the statement.” She further admits that “she neither told her family members, nor her neighbors about the blood stains.” The learned counsel for Nidhi Sharma has argued that both these witnesses are unreliable. However, neither of these two witnesses has any animosity towards Nidhi Sharma, nor are they interested witnesses. They are, in fact, independent witnesses who have not been shattered in their cross-examination. Moreover, as would be noticed hereinafter, their testimony is corroborated by the recoveries made at the house of Nidhi Sharma. Thus, they are reliable witnesses: according to them the tell-tale signs of blood stains were cleaned at Nidhi Sharma’s directions. They are, in fact, independent witnesses who have not been shattered in their cross-examination. Moreover, as would be noticed hereinafter, their testimony is corroborated by the recoveries made at the house of Nidhi Sharma. Thus, they are reliable witnesses: according to them the tell-tale signs of blood stains were cleaned at Nidhi Sharma’s directions. Hence, Nidhi Sharma tried to erase evidence of the murder committed in her house. Ashok Kumar was arrested on 6.5.2003 by arrest memo (Ex.P.25); Nidhi Sharma was also arrested on 6.5.2003 by arrest memo (Ex.P.26). On 8.5.2003, at 12.30 A.M. by Exhibit74, Nidhi Sharma gave a statement under Section 27, Evidence Act (Ex.P.74) whereby she informed the police that she could take the police to the house where she had murdered her husband. A similar statement was also given by Ashok Kumar on 8.5.2003 at 1.20 A.M. (Ex.P.75). In pursuance of this statement, the police took them to Nidhi Sharma’s house and collected various clues, articles and objects from the said house. From the bedroom, by Exhibit-P.15, they collected a mattress which was soaked in blood. The said mattress had blood at two spots. They also collected part of ply of the bed which was also blood stained. They also collected part of the floor which was blood stained. Similarly, by Exhibit-P.16, a part of the marble floor of the basement which, too, had blood stains upon it, was recovered from the basement. Hemraj Tak (P.W.9), an independent witness has duly proven Ex. P. 15 and 16. These recoveries, supported by independent witness, Hemraj Tak, corroborate the testimony of Smt. Krishna (P.W31) that when she went inside the house of Nidha Sharma, she noted blood spots at various places. These recoveries also prove the fact that Bhawani Shankar was murdered in his house. During the search of the house and at the instance of Nidhi Sharma and Ashok Kumar, police also recovered the Bhawani Shankar’s personal diary and photos by recovery memo (Ex.P.13). These articles were discovered in an almirah. Similarly, the police also recovered Rs. 82,450/- by recovery memo (Ex.P.14). These articles were recovered from different parts of Nidhi Sharma’s house. This is also proven by site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P.18). Both of these recoveries memos and the site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P.18) have again been proven by Hemraj Tak (P.W.9). Similarly, the police also recovered Rs. 82,450/- by recovery memo (Ex.P.14). These articles were recovered from different parts of Nidhi Sharma’s house. This is also proven by site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P.18). Both of these recoveries memos and the site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P.18) have again been proven by Hemraj Tak (P.W.9). Thus, after searching the house, the police had recovered tell-tale signs of the murder that had occurred in the house. On 15.5.2003, at 8.45 A.M., Nidhi Sharma again made a statement (Ex.P.84) under Section 27 of Evidence Act informing the police that she could take them to the spot on the Devli Road where she and Ashok had thrown the axe amongst the Babool tries. A similar statement was also made by Ashok Kumar (Ex.P.85) on 15.5.2003 at 9.30 A.M. In pursuance of these two statements, by recovery memo (Ex.P.40), a blood stained axe was recovered on the side of the Kekri-Devli Road amongst a group of Vilayati Babool trees. According to the description of the axe given in Exhibit-P.40, the axe was made out of iron and had a bamboo like stick (bassa) attached to it. While the axe (Kulhadi) was sharp, the bamboo stick was new one. Both the axe and the wooden part had blood on them. The said recovery was made before two independent witnesses, namely Madan (P.W.30) and Kamlesh (who has not been examined by the prosecution). Madan (P. W. 30) proves this recovery. Madan (P.W.30) in his examination-in-chief informs the court that “it was ten months back, I was at a hotel at a place called Nigadia, which is close to the Banas Pulia (Banas bridge). Police came there along with a man and a woman. Looking at the accused present in the court, he identified both of them.” According to him “while the man was walking in front, the woman was walking behind him along with the police.” According to him, “a Kulhadi (axe) was recovered amongst the Babool trees. When a sealed packed bag was opened and the axe was pulled out, he identified the axe as the one recovered from the spot. The axe was marked as Article-16.” He further informed the court that “the recovery memo is Exhibit-P.14 which contains his thumb impression.” According to him, “the axe so recovered was sealed in a bag. When a sealed packed bag was opened and the axe was pulled out, he identified the axe as the one recovered from the spot. The axe was marked as Article-16.” He further informed the court that “the recovery memo is Exhibit-P.14 which contains his thumb impression.” According to him, “the axe so recovered was sealed in a bag. The seal was shown in Exhibit-P.40 as ‘X, Y, Z’.” According to him, “the site plan of the recovery of the axe is Exhibit-P.41 which contains his thumb impression at a place marked as ‘X’.” In his cross-examination, he clearly stated that “the place from where the axe was recovered is about 200 mtrs. away from a culvert (Nala). If one were to stand on the road, one cannot see the Kulhadi. It is only when one climbs down from the road, one could see the Kulhadi amongst the Babool trees. He also clarifies that it took him one hour to discover the axe.” According to him, “the site plan was made at the place of the recovery.” He also clarifies that “the police was working in groups of five persons or eight persons each and he himself was helping them look for the axe.” Thus, this witness not only describes the manner in which the search was carried out, not only describes the place where the axe was recovered, but most importantly, also proves the fact that the axe was recovered after a hard search and that, too, at the instance of the Nidhi Sharma and Ashok Kumar. Thus, the recovery of the axe at the instance of the appellants is unassailable. On 15.5.2003, Nidhi Sharma gave another statement (Ex.P.82) to the police under Section 27, Evidence Act, wherein she claimed that she could take the police to the spot where the Bhatti (stove) and a Jerrican, full of blood, were hidden in a jungle near the village Hatoondi. They have hidden these two objects after digging a hole and covering it with soil. A similar statement (Ex.P.83) was made by Ashok Kumar on 15.5.2003 at 8.00 A.M. In pursuance of these two statements, on 15.5.2003, the police took them to the Kaklana Hatoondi Road, to a place off the said road, at a place marked as “X” in site plan (Ex.P.45), which indicates a small hill. A similar statement (Ex.P.83) was made by Ashok Kumar on 15.5.2003 at 8.00 A.M. In pursuance of these two statements, on 15.5.2003, the police took them to the Kaklana Hatoondi Road, to a place off the said road, at a place marked as “X” in site plan (Ex.P.45), which indicates a small hill. After removing the soil, the police recovered a Gas Ki Bhatti (gas stove) and a plastic Jerrican. According to the description of the gas stove given in the recovery memo (Ex. P. 44), on the gas stove there are burnt hair which are stuck. According to the description of the 50 ltr. plastic Jerrican which was black colored, the jerrican contained dried blood. The said recovery was made in presence of independent witness Naziria @ Nazir Khan (P.W.48). Nazir Khan (P.W.48) proves both the recovery memo (Ex.P.44) and the site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P.45). In his examination-in-chief, he states that “his signature is on Exhibit-P.44.” According to him, “the police had called him as they were about to go for recovery of some items. At that time, both Nidhi and Ashok were with the police. He identified them in the court.” According to him, “both Ashok and Nidhi dug out the gas stove and the Jerrican from a ditch. The site plan (Ex.P.45) contains his signature at ‘C’ to ‘D’. He identified Article-19, Bhatti, and Article-20, the plastic Jerrican. He also identified his signature on the slips which were attached on both these articles. He also identified the seal which was placed on Exhbit-P.44.” In the cross-examination, he clearly states that “his signatures were taken at the site of recovery.” He also claims that “there were burned hair on the frame of the gas stove”. He also admits that “he has worked as a ASI in the police, and that he has retired from the police force.” Merely because this witness happens to be a former police personal would not dilute the veracity of his testimony, especially when he has not been shattered as a witness in the cross-examination. Thus, he supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery. Thus, he supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery. Likewise, on 9.5.2003, Ashok Kumar made a statement (Ex.P.76) to the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein he claimed that he could take the police to the place where he and Nidhi had thrown a blood stained Chunni, and the mop used for cleaning the blood stains from the floors of the house. A similar statement was also given by Nidhi Sharma on 9.5.2003 (Ex.P.77). In pursuance of these statements, the police took both the appellants along with two independent witnesses, namely Jagdish (P.W.22) and Sheoji Ram (P.W.23). Near Rameshwar Paultry Farm, Orda Road, the police recovered a blood stained Chunni, mop, underwear and one cement bag. Although it is true that both Jagdish (P.W.22) and Sheoji Ram (P.W.23) have admitted in their cross-examination that they were asked to sign on blank pieces of papers by the police, but the said statement is an afterthought. For, a bare perusal of the recovery memo (Ex.P.36) clearly reveals that these persons have signed immediately after where the recovery memo ends. Moreover their signatures are in the back of the page, and that too 1/4th from the top. In case they were asked to sign on a blank pieces of paper, obviously they would not have been asked to sign on back side of the paper, and that, too, 1/4th from the top. Therefore, the statement given in their cross-examination cannot be believed. Most importantly, in their examination-in-chief they do admit to their signature on recovery memo (Ex.P.36). Therefore, notwithstanding their claim in their cross-examination, they support the case of the prosecution. Likewise, on 9.5.2003, Ashok had given statement (Ex.P.78) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act wherein he had claimed that he had could take the police to the place where he had hidden a blood stained pillow. Similar statement was also given by Nidhi Sharma (Ex.P.79). Pursuant to these two statements, the police went ahead of Village Hatoondi, on the road turning towards Kaklara and Rajosi, and fifty steps from the road, amongst a patch of Vilayati Babool trees, the police recovered a blood stained pillow. The police made this recovery in front of independent witnesses, namely Gulab (P. W. 21) and Malla (P. W. 26). Thus, the blood stained pillow was also recovered at the instance of the accused appellants. The police made this recovery in front of independent witnesses, namely Gulab (P. W. 21) and Malla (P. W. 26). Thus, the blood stained pillow was also recovered at the instance of the accused appellants. While in his examination-in-chief, Gulab (P. W. 21) admits his signature on the recovery memo (Ex. P. 34), but in his cross-examination he claims that he had signed on blank pieces of paper. Likewise, Malla (P. W. 26) admits his signature in his examination-in-chief, but claims in the cross-examination that he was asked to sign on blank piece of paper. Lastly, on 9.5.2003, Ashok had made a statement (Ex.P.80) wherein he told the police that he could take them to his house located at Shivaji Nagar and could get recovered the pant which he was wearing at the time of alleged murder. In pursuance of this statement, by recovery memo (Ex.P.30), the police recovered the pant from Ashok Kumar’s house in presence of two independent witnesses, namely Hans Raj (P.W.19) and Ashok Tak (P.W.20). Although it is true that both these witnesses have turned hostile, but they do admit their signatures on the recovery memo (Ex.P.30). Similarly, on 9-5-03, Nidhi Sharma also made a statement (Ex.P.81) under Section 27, Evidence Act wherein she told the police that she could take them to her house and get the blouse and the Sari recovered, which she was wearing when the alleged murder took place. In pursuance of this statement, by recovery memo (Ex.P.31), the police recovered the Sari and the Blouse from a bathroom on the first floor of the house, in presence of two independent witnesses, namely Hans Raj (P.W.19) and Ashok Tak (P.W.20). Hansraj (P.W.19) is silent about his signature on the recovery memo of Sari and blouse (Ex.P.31). However, Ashok Tak (P.W.20) admits to his signatures on Ex.P.31, although he has turned hostile in the court. Hansraj (P.W.19) is silent about his signature on the recovery memo of Sari and blouse (Ex.P.31). However, Ashok Tak (P.W.20) admits to his signatures on Ex.P.31, although he has turned hostile in the court. In the case of Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435 and in the case of Surendra Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 247 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that “in case the recovery witnesses were to admit their signatures on the recovery memo, but were to turn hostile, then the court should believe the contents of the recovery memo and deposition of the investigating officer.” Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant are unjustified in claiming that merely because the recovery witnesses have turned hostile, the recovery should be disbelieved. In the present case, the recovery witnesses have admitted their signatures on the recovery memo. Although some of them have turned hostile, but under the principles prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court this court has to believe the contents of the recovery memo and the deposition of the investigating officer. Veer Singh (P.W.51), the Investigating Officer, clearly states in his examination-in-chief that he had recovered the blood stained pant from Ashok’s residence at his instance from his house. Similarly he tells the court in his examination-in-chief that the police had recovered the Sari and the blouse from the bathroom of the first floor of Nidhi Sharma’s house. Since Veer Singh has no animosity with the appellants, there is no reason to disbelieve his deposition. The significance of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is based on two essential elements: firstly, it reveals the authorship of concealment of the physical object hidden by the alleged offender. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Jageshwar and Others, AIR 1983 SC 349 the Apex Court has observed that “The discovery, mostly and really, is as regards the authorship of concealment. Conduct and concealment are incriminating circumstances and their discovery becomes relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.” Secondly, the statement of the offender is corroborated by the subsequent discovery of the fact. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. David Razario, JT 2002 (7) SC 283, the Apex Court observed that “The basic idea embedded in section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. David Razario, JT 2002 (7) SC 283, the Apex Court observed that “The basic idea embedded in section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section.” The series of recoveries, made on different dates from different places at the instance of the accused appellants, are thus highly significant. For they reveal the author of concealment, the conduct of the accused, and the knowledge of the accused. They confirm their conduct and knowledge, their animus and guilt by subsequent event. These recoveries thus point singularly to the guilt of the appellants. These recovered items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its serological report. According to FSL Report (Ex.P.106), the FSL had received 23 sealed packets. The FSL submitted two reports, namely Ex. P. 106 and Ex. P. 107. These recoveries thus point singularly to the guilt of the appellants. These recovered items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its serological report. According to FSL Report (Ex.P.106), the FSL had received 23 sealed packets. The FSL submitted two reports, namely Ex. P. 106 and Ex. P. 107. The analysis is as under: FSL Analysis Report of Exhibits:- S. No. Packet Marked Exhibit No. Details of Exhibit Conclusion after Examination Articles on which Group 'A' was found 1 A 4 Shirt+ Hair Group 'A' 6 Pillow cover Group 'A' 10 I 19 Blouse Group 'A' 11 J 20 Pant Group 'A' 14 M 23 Pillow Group 'A' 15 N 24 Pocha, Plastic Katta, Cloth Piece Group 'A' 19 R 30 Kulhari Group 'A' Articles on which Human Blood was found 1 A 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 Katta (Plastic) Katta (Plastic) Bed Sheet Katta (Jute) Plastic Thali Plastic Chaddar Chaddar Human Blood Human Blood Human Blood Human Blood Human Blood Human Blood Human Blood 2 (Ka) 10 Thread Human Blood 3 (Kha) 11 Hairs Human Blood 4 (Ga) 12 Swab Human Blood 5 B1 13 Gadda (2) Human Blood 6 C 24 Ply Human Blood 7 D 15 Marble Stone Human Blood 8 E 16 Marble Stone Human Blood 9 F 17 Marble Stone Human Blood 10 I 18 Sari Human Blood 12 K 21 Blood Smeared Soil Human Blood 13 L 22 Control Soil Human Blood 15 N 25 26 Chunni Chaddi Human Blood Human Blood 16 O 27 Bricks Human Blood 17 P 28 Bhatti + Hair + Tissue Human Blood 18 Q 29 Jerrican Human Blood 20 I 3 Blood Smeared Soil Human Blood 21 1/1 32 Control Soil Human Blood 22 2 33 Stone (2) Human Blood 23 2/1 34 Control Stone (4) Human Blood The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the prosecution has not established that Bhawani Shankar’s blood group was ‘A’. Moreover, it has not eliminated the possibility that the blood group 'A' did not belong to the appellants. Therefore, the FSL Reports are not much of help to the prosecution. Moreover, it has not eliminated the possibility that the blood group 'A' did not belong to the appellants. Therefore, the FSL Reports are not much of help to the prosecution. But in the case of Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that “once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group (s) loses significance.” The case of Jagroop Singh (supra) was also followed in the case of Sunil Glifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 . Further, in the case of John Pandian vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “Though the blood group could not be ascertained, as the results were inconclusive, A-9 had to give some explanation as to how human blood came on this weapon. He gave none. This discovery would very positively further the prosecution case.” In the present case the axe was recovered at the instance of both the appellants. It had blood group ‘A’ on it. Yet, neither of the appellants has offered any explanation for the same. Thus, the discovery furthers the case of the prosecution. Similar logic can be applied to other articles/objects which were discovered at the instances of the appellants, which either bear blood group ‘A’, or have human blood, but no explanation has been offered by the appellants. Thus, their silence strengthens the prosecution case. Hence, the learned counsel is unjustified in claiming that the FSL Reports (Ex. P. 106 and 107) do not further the case of the prosecution. As far as the evidence against Ashok Kumar is concerned, there is not only oral evidence, but even documentary evidence against him. This court has already noted above the testimony of Nandu Gurjar (P.W.8) with regard to Ashok Kumar. On 8.5.2003, Ashok Kumar gave a statement (Ex.P.73) under Section 27, Evidence Act to the police that the gold chain, given to him by Nidhi Sharma, which he has sold to R.R. Jewelers, New Bazar, Ajmer, he could take the police to the store and get the chain recovered. On 8.5.2003, Ashok Kumar gave a statement (Ex.P.73) under Section 27, Evidence Act to the police that the gold chain, given to him by Nidhi Sharma, which he has sold to R.R. Jewelers, New Bazar, Ajmer, he could take the police to the store and get the chain recovered. In pursuance of this statement, the police along with Roop Kishore (P.W.36), Ashok Soni (not produced by the prosecution as a witness) went to the shop of Rameshwar and recovered the gold chain (Ex.P.46). Rameshwar Lal (P.W.35), the jeweler, claims that “his shop is run in the name and style of R.R. JeweleRs. When a sealed packed was opened and a gold chain was pulled out, this witness recognized the chain. He said, this article (17), the gold chain, is from my shop. This chain bears the identification symbol; ‘R.R.’ and ’23 K.D.M.’ is written on the chain. This chain was bought from my shop on 18.12.2002 by Nidhi Sharma. I had given her a bill for it. On 24.4.2003, Ashok brought the Article-17, the gold chain to me for the purpose of selling the same. I know Ashok Vaishnav. The witness then identified him in the court. I also know Nidhi. Nidhi Sharma is my customer who frequently comes to my shop. Nidhi Sharma and Ashok use to come to my shop often. Article-17, the gold chain, was recovered by the police on 8.5.2003. At that time, Ashok Vaishnav was also with the police. Recovery memo is Exhibit-P.46 which bears my signature at ‘A’ and ‘B’. The said article was sealed in a white bag and marked with a seal reading ‘X, Y, Z’. There were two independent witnesses, one was Ramesh Soni and other was Roop Kishore Sharma. The place from where the gold chain was recovered, the site plan of the same is Ex.P.47 which bears my signature as ‘A to B’.” This witness has not been shattered in his cross-examination. Thus, there is no reason for disbelieving the testimony of this witness. Of course, Roop Kishore (P.W.36) in his cross-examination has claimed that the chain had the name “Nidhi” written on it. However, this is merely a minor contradiction. For, Roop Kishore is himself a recovery witness of the gold chain. Thus, there is no reason for disbelieving the testimony of this witness. Of course, Roop Kishore (P.W.36) in his cross-examination has claimed that the chain had the name “Nidhi” written on it. However, this is merely a minor contradiction. For, Roop Kishore is himself a recovery witness of the gold chain. In his examination-in-chief, he has not only proven the recovery memo (Ex.P.46), but has also identified the gold chain as the one recovered from the shop where he was working as a salesman. Moreover, he has corroborated the testimony of Rameshwar Lal (P.W.35), his employer. Such a minor contradiction does not whittle down the case of the prosecution against Ashok Kumar. As mentioned above, Ashok’s statement (Ex.P.83) under Section 27, Evidence Act had led to the recovery of the gas stove and the plastic jerrican by recovery memo (Ex.P.44). The said recovery has been proven by Nazir Khan (P.W.48), an independent witness. According to Nazir Khan (P.W.48), Ashok had dug up the place where the gas stove and the jerrican were buried. Most importantly, Ashok’s statement (Ex.P.85) given under Section 27, Evidence Act led to the discovery of the axe by recovery memo (Ex.P.40). As discussed above, this recovery was proved by independent witness Madan (PW.30). As also mentioned above, the concealment of the axe is subsequent recovery at the instance of Ashok. His non-explanation about the presence of blood ground ‘A’ on the axe positively establishes his role in the murder of Bhawani Shankar. Thus, these recoveries reveal Ashok’s conduct, and knowledge, and involvement in the murder of Bhawani Shankar. Hence, there is ample evidence pointing unerringly towards his guilt. Therefore, the learned counsel for Ashok is unjustified in claiming that the case against Ashok hinges on a weak peg. The society calls for justice to be done in a crime committed by the culprit. The court has to reflect the sense of justice projected by the society [Ref. to Ravji @ Ram Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 , State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 SC 1470 , Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532 , Shyam Narain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77 and Hazara Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 516 ]. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in both the appeals. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in both the appeals. Therefore, the appeals are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Judge by the impugned judgment dated 30.7.2004 is, hereby, confirmed.