JUDGMENT Navin Sinha, J. 1. The Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- only. In the event of failure to pay fine, she was required to undergo one month further rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1998 dated 23.01.1999. Merg was recorded by P.W. 17, Bhagwan Singh Rathore, the Officer In-charge, on 01.10.1997 at 16.30 hours with regard to the dead body of a minor child who appeared to be less than one year old floating in the pond as informed by Rajkumar, P.W. 20. Dehati Nalishi was registered on basis of the same marked Exhibit P/1 on the same day. The FIR, Exhibit P/17 was lodged on 06.10.1997. The body was sent for postmortem conducted on 02.10.1997 by P.W. 25, Dr. Ulhas Gonnade. By report marked Exhibit P/20 he opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem drowning and death had occurred 48-72 hours before the postmortem. The age of the corpse was assessed as about 5-6 months old. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. There is no reason why she would have killed her own child. In her defence under 313 Cr.P.C., she had taken the stand that it was her mother's sister Godawari Bai, P.W. 3 who had killed the child. 3. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that accusation against the Appellant virtually stands admitted in her reply to questions put to her under 313 Cr.P.C. The Appellant also made false statements to witnesses that she had left the child behind with her husband. It also becomes an incriminating factor against her. From the evidence of witnesses, it is very clear that earlier she had come to the village with the child though on the subsequent occasion, the child was not with her. 4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also examined the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Any statement by the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence against her for conviction. The prosecution has to first prove a prima facie case on its own strength. The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the Appellant may be incriminating factors if otherwise corroborated. 5. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Any statement by the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence against her for conviction. The prosecution has to first prove a prima facie case on its own strength. The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the Appellant may be incriminating factors if otherwise corroborated. 5. P.W. 1, Tejpal Mishra proved the Dehati Nalishi marked Exhibit P/1 and the inquest report marked Exhibit P/2. P.W. 2 Nand Kumar Wadhvani proved Exhibit P/4 prepared in identification of the dead body of the minor child. P.W. 3 Godavari Bai was the sister of Appellant's mother. She deposed that her sister was in custody in a case. The Appellant had earlier come to her with a child about 5-6 months old. When the Appellant came back on 30.09.1994 the child was not with her. The witness asked the Appellant where she had left the child. The Appellant replied that she had left the child at Kauwatola, P.S. Gandai. The dead body of the child was recovered from the pond near the house of the witness which was identified by co-villagers as being that of the Appellant's child. She left home the next morning saying that she was going to visit her mother in jail. The Appellant had a land dispute with her step brothers who consequently did not wish her to stay in the village. 6. P.W. 4, Urmila Prasad Pandey the Police Officer who helped in the investigation deposed that the Kotwar informed him that the Appellant had a land dispute with her step brothers who were not happy with her having married outside the caste with P.W. 5 Tauran Kumar Netam. The Panch asked her to leave the child with the father. P.W. 5 turned hostile and denied he had married the Appellant or that the child was his. P.W. 6, Fagu Das the Kotwar of the village deposed that the Appellant had come to the village with a small child. Her step brothers did not approve of her marriage and conduct after which the Appellant left the village. 7. P.W. 7, Phul Singh Lodhi deposed that the Appellant had said that she would stay at home which was opposed by her brothers. P.W. 8, Jeetram deposed that the Appellant had come to the village with a child and a Panchayat was called. 7. P.W. 7, Phul Singh Lodhi deposed that the Appellant had said that she would stay at home which was opposed by her brothers. P.W. 8, Jeetram deposed that the Appellant had come to the village with a child and a Panchayat was called. The Appellant had informed that she had married a person disclosing his name and identity. P.W. 9, Manrakhan deposed having heard that the Appellant had been arrested and acknowledged that Panchayat had been held with regard to her marriage and the child born from the same. P.W. 10, Umesh Sharma proved the spot map marked Exhibit P/18 where the dead body was found in the pond. 8. PW 11, Ramkumar step brother of the Appellant deposed that Appellant had come with a child and was queried about the same when she informed that she had solemnized an inter caste marriage and on objection left the village. On being asked where she had left the child she stated that she had left it with the father. P.W. 12, Tularam turned hostile. P.W. 13, Hemram Dheemar proved the inquest report. P.W. 14, Jagatram Chauhan proved having taken the dead body of the child for postmortem. P.W. 15, Thanuram Dheewar proved the notice prepared before sending the body for postmortem. P.W. 16, Vijay Prasad Gupta turned hostile. P.W. 21, Rajkumar was also an inquest witness. P.W. 22, Mahavir Sen was a seizure list witness to the clothes of the deceased. P.W. 23, G.S. Bax was the Investigating Officer who deposed having recorded the statement of the witnesses. P.W. 26, Dhabbulal Sen was the Tailor who identified the seized clothes of the child as stitched by him. 9. The facts as disclosed from the evidence of the witnesses reveal that the Appellant was approximately 19 years old at the time of occurrence. She had married with P.W. 5 outside her caste. The minor child was born from the wedlock. Her mother was incarcerated in jail. The Appellant's deceased father had four sons from his earlier marriage. The step brothers were not willing to share the land property with her. When she came back to the village after her marriage, her step brothers had objected to the inter caste marriage and wanted her to leave the village. She came to the village again and on being asked, made a false statement that she had left the child with the father. When she came back to the village after her marriage, her step brothers had objected to the inter caste marriage and wanted her to leave the village. She came to the village again and on being asked, made a false statement that she had left the child with the father. P.W. 3, the aunt of the Appellant has deposed that on the earlier occasion she had come with the child and when she returned later, the child was not with her. On query, she made a false statement of having left the child at Kauwatola, PS. Gandai. The Appellant thus made a false statement on two occasions to different witnesses with regard to the deceased child. 10. It is not the case of the Appellant that she had lodged any report or complaint against any other that her child had been taken away or killed by another. The conduct of the Appellant as the mother of the minor child aged 5-6 months who may have gone missing is not natural. Her defence that P.W. 3 had killed the child cannot be accepted because the Appellant did not depose of any land dispute with her aunt but with her step brothers. P.W. 3 was the sister of the Appellant's mother. If the minor new born child of the appellant had gone missing or was killed by another surely the Appellant as the mother of the child would have lodged a report or at least told the fact to some other whether a family member or outsider. No defence has been led that the Appellant ever made this disclosure to anyone. The evidence on record therefore sufficiently discloses an inter caste marriage, the child born from the wedlock, the social ostracism of the Appellant, the husband not supporting her in trying times, leading to the Appellant who was then only 19 years old throwing away the child. Presumably, it appears P.W. 5 was not willing to keep her any more, the villagers were protesting because of her having come with the child born from an inter caste marriage and her step brothers would not allow her to stay in the village because of the property dispute. 11. Though her statement under 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the substantive foundation for her conviction but coupled with the aforesaid evidence leaves us satisfied that the conviction requires no interference. 11. Though her statement under 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the substantive foundation for her conviction but coupled with the aforesaid evidence leaves us satisfied that the conviction requires no interference. In her statement under 313 Cr.P.C. she did not deny anything and on the contrary admitted each fact commencing from her inter caste marriage, birth of the child, social ostracism, the dispute with the brothers and also in reply to question 88 of having thrown the child in the pond. She did put up a feeble defence that P.W. 3 had killed the child but no question in this regard was put to the witness in cross examination or any evidence led in support of the same. 12. In Brajendrasingh Vs. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 289 it was held that the statement of the accused under Section 313-Cr.P.C. can also be considered for conviction if it otherwise supports the case of the prosecution observing:-- "14. Neither the death of the three children nor that of his wife Aradhna is disputed/and/or practically admitted by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has also admitted that he had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased Aradhna with a knife....." 15. It is a settled principle of law that the statement of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used as evidence against the accused, insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution. Equally true is that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. simpliciter normally cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused. But where the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is in line with the case of the prosecution, then certainly the heavy onus of proof on the prosecution is, to some extent, reduced." 13. In conclusion, we find no reason to arrive at any different conclusion than the Trial Court for upholding conviction of the Appellant. 14. When the appeal was taken up for hearing and there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant, notice was issued to her on 19.03.2014, validly served and in response to which she is now represented. Learned Counsel for the State has drawn our attention to the police report that the Appellant has since remarried also and is living with another. It is possible that she may have had a child also. Learned Counsel for the State has drawn our attention to the police report that the Appellant has since remarried also and is living with another. It is possible that she may have had a child also. The Appellant was all of 19 years old at the time of occurrence. She has remained in custody for approximately 2 years only from 17.10.1997 the date of her arrest till grant of bail on 24.09.1999 in appeal. But sympathy cannot supplant our jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to examining the correctness of the order of conviction only. 15. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction. 16. The Appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and she is directed to surrender forthwith arid/or be taken into custody immediately to serve the remaining period of conviction. The Anneal is dismissed.