Judgment : Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.9.2010 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.3/08/07, whereby the appellant/ accused (hereafter referred to as the “accused for the sake of convenience), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Rimpal Kaur was legally wedded wife of the accused. Her marriage was solemnized about 7-8 months prior to recovery of her dead body on 27.5.2006. After marriage, the accused started maltreating her in order to coerce her to meet his unlawful demand of dowry. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased. She brought this fact to the notice of her parents. Her father, PW1 Harbans Singh, could not meet the demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. He could arrange for a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- from his relative, husband of his sister-in-law. On 14.5.2006, the accused along with deceased came to the house of Harbans Singh to visit Dalhousie. The accused asked Harbans Singh to send with him his son PW2 Samraj Singh. Accordingly, PW1 Harbans Singh sent his son PW2 Samraj Singh along with accused and deceased, who came in Alto Car No.PB-02(Temp) 2006 AH-1467. The accused, deceased and Samraj Singh stayed at Khajjiar on 14.5.2006. On 15.5.2006, they came to Dalhousie and stayed in a single room at Hotel Chaman Palace. On 17.5.2006, a telephonic message was received by Harbans Singh, father of the deceased from the accused that the deceased had gone missing and could not be located. Thereafter, the accused along with Samraj came to Jallandhar from where Samraj Singh was brought back. Samraj Singh apprised his father that on 16.5.2006, accused offered a bottle of beer to him. On 17.5.2006, a telephonic message was received by Harbans Singh, father of the deceased from the accused that the deceased had gone missing and could not be located. Thereafter, the accused along with Samraj came to Jallandhar from where Samraj Singh was brought back. Samraj Singh apprised his father that on 16.5.2006, accused offered a bottle of beer to him. It was mixed with some sedative and as such, he became little drowsy. The accused told him that he along with deceased had to go out where his presence was not required and left the hotel along with the deceased. After about two hours, the accused came back all alone to the hotel and told Samraj Singh that the deceased had gone missing. They went in search of the deceased, but they could not locate her. On 17.5.2006, a missing report was lodged at Police Post, Dalhousie by the accused. On 27.5.2006, PW15 Noor Bibi, at about 6.00/6.30 P.M., noticed a dead body lying in the Nallah at Jhardu jungle near mother tree having maggots while she was taking back her buffalo to the house. She disclosed this fact to her son, Yusaf. Next morning, she informed Pradhan Mohinder Singh, who further informed the police. The police gave information to the relatives of the deceased and proceeded to the spot. Father and brother of the deceased reached Khajjiar on 28.5.2006. They identified the dead body to be of deceased Rimpal Kaur from her shoes and pants recovered from the spot. Inquest reports, Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW4/B were prepared. Statement of the father of the deceased under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, on the basis of which FIR, Ext.PW6/B was registered. Site plan, Ext.PW14/C was prepared. The dead body with maggots was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW4/D. Pants and shoes were taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW2/A. The photographs of the spot, Ext.PW14/A-1 to Ext.PW14/A-4 were taken. Post mortem was conducted by PW5 Dr. Umesh Dhiman on application moved by the Police vide Ext.PW5/A. As per the post mortem report, the body was highly decomposed and, therefore, it was not possible to give opinion about the cause of death and the Medical Officer referred the dead body to Forensic Expert to Dr. R.P.M.C., Tanda. The application, Ext.PW4/A was moved to the Forensic Expert for post mortem. R.P.M.C., Tanda. The application, Ext.PW4/A was moved to the Forensic Expert for post mortem. According to post mortem report, Ext.PW4/B, cause of death could not be ascertained due to missing of almost half of the body and due to decomposition. During investigation, Alto Car No. PB-02(Temp)2006 AH-1467 was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW8/A from DW3 Raman Kumar along with its documents. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. He also examined five witnesses in his defence. Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 30.9.2010, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment dated 30.9.2010. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 7. PW1, Harbans Singh, deposed that deceased Rimple Kaur was his daughter. She was married to the accused Gurdeep Singh about eight months prior to her death. Accused Gurdeep Singh was working as Head Constable in Punjab Police at Jallandhar. After marriage, accused used to give beatings to his daughter on account of dowry. He demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. He could arrange for Rs.1,00,000/- from his relative, husband of his sister-in-law. On 14.5.2006, accused Gurdeep Singh telephonically told him that he and Rimple Kaur were going to Dalhousie for a trip and he asked to send his son, Samraj with them. He sent his son Samraj with them in a car. On 17.5.2006, accused Gurdeep Singh telephonically informed him that Rimple Kaur had gone missing from Dalhousie. He rebuked him and told that he had killed his daughter. Thereafter, the accused came with his son Samraj Singh. Accused Gurpreet Singh also lodged a missing report in the Police Station on 17.5.2006. According to him, the accused had murdered his daughter. His son told him that they stayed in a hotel at Dalhousie. He rebuked him and told that he had killed his daughter. Thereafter, the accused came with his son Samraj Singh. Accused Gurpreet Singh also lodged a missing report in the Police Station on 17.5.2006. According to him, the accused had murdered his daughter. His son told him that they stayed in a hotel at Dalhousie. During the night, accused took the deceased out and he offered one bottle of beer to him. His son further told him that during the night only Gurpreet Singh returned to the hotel and the deceased was not with him. He received a telephonic call from Chamba Police that a dead body had been found. He was called for identification. He went to Chamba on the same day and identified dead body of his daughter from the clothes and face. He reported the matter to the police vide report, Ext.PW1/A. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had received telephonic message from Chamba Police. They reached Dalhousie same day at 4.00/5.00 P.M.. Thereafter, they went to Khajjiar, where dead body was lying. They had their own vehicle. They reached Khajjiar within half an hour. One photographer, Pradhan of the Panchayat and police officials were already present there before their arrival. The body was highly decomposed. He admitted that the skin was missing from the body, except the arms, from where they identified the dead body. He admitted that the women wear pants like Ext.P2. He again reiterated that the accused started maltreating his daughter after one month of marriage. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-after 4-5 months of marriage. He did not lodge the report on 17.5.2006 when he received telephonic message from the accused since he was under tension. 8. PW2, Samraj, is brother of the deceased. He deposed that on 14.5.2006, he accompanied his sister and the accused to Dalhousie. On that day, they stayed at Khajjiar and next day, they visited Dalhousie and took room in Chaman Hotel. Accused started drinking outside. The accused received a telephonic call and the deceased enquired from the accused the name of the person, who was making him call. The accused became angry and the deceased got annoyed. Thereafter, the accused pacified the deceased. Thereafter, they left the hotel to Bazaar. Accused purchased a knife in the bazaar along with other articles. He also purchased artificial jewelry for the deceased. The accused became angry and the deceased got annoyed. Thereafter, the accused pacified the deceased. Thereafter, they left the hotel to Bazaar. Accused purchased a knife in the bazaar along with other articles. He also purchased artificial jewelry for the deceased. The accused got removed the original ornaments, which the deceased was wearing and he handed over to her artificial jewelry. The accused told him that he along with the deceased was going outside. He offered him a bottle of beer. He became drowsy because something was mixed in it. He came out of the room and accused told him that the deceased had brought articles and required money. He asked him to hand over the money to her in the bazaar. Then accused gave him Rs.600/-. He went to bazaar, but the deceased was not found there. He came back and accused met him in the Chowk. He told the accused that his sister was not in the bazaar. He returned the money to him. The accused went in search of the deceased and thereafter, he came back alone. Accused told him that the deceased could not be traced out. Next day, accused lodged a report with the police that the deceased was missing. Thereafter, the accused telephonically informed his father and informed about him about the incident. On 28.5.2006, they received a telephonic message from Chamba Police that a dead body was found at Khajjiar and they were asked to identify the same. They visited the spot on 28.5.2006. The police showed them a dead body, pants and one shoe. They identified the same to be of Rimple Kaur. According to him, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from them. He used to hurl abuses to the deceased. They paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. In cross-examination, he deposed that they returned to Jallandhar on 18.5.2006. He stayed on that night with the accused. The shoe, Ext.P-3 was lying at a distance of about 10 feet from the dead body. He regained consciousness next day at about 7.30 A.M. He had accompanied the accused at the time of lodging the report. He was sitting outside the room when the accused lodged the report. 9. PW3, Mahinder Kumar, deposed that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Khajjiar. He regained consciousness next day at about 7.30 A.M. He had accompanied the accused at the time of lodging the report. He was sitting outside the room when the accused lodged the report. 9. PW3, Mahinder Kumar, deposed that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Khajjiar. He was told by Noor Bibi, wife of Abdulla that one dead body in decomposed condition was lying near a mother tree. Thereafter, he telephonically informed about it to the Police Station Chamba. Police visited the spot. He also accompanied the police. The mother, father and brother of the deceased were also present on the spot. One white boot, Ext.P1 and one blue jean pants, Ext.P2 were also recovered. Boot, Ext.P1 was having impression of comfort walk. These articles were identified by the family of Rimple Kaur to be belonging to her. The dead body was taken into possession by the police. Inquest report, Ext.PW3/A was prepared. 10. PW4, Dr.D.P. Swami, deposed that on 30.5.2006, on the application, Ext.PW4/A moved by the police along with inquest report, Ext.PW3/A and copy of the post mortem conducted at Chamba Hospital, he conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report, Ext.PW4/B. He observed as under:- 1. External Appearance. Female body, highly decomposed with maggots, swarming all around the body. Skull bone was separated and intact. Right leg toes were gnawn by animals. All the findings of missing bones were confirmed and consistent to first post mortem No.76/2006 to that of Chamba, R.H. Postmortem dated 29.5.2006, No. Nil. The skull bones were separated after decomposition and no evidence of sharp cut injury. The skin of head and face was missing due to decomposition and not due to burn. No evidence of ante mortem or postmortem burn was seen. “I. Cranium and Spinal Cord The brain and membranes were missing due to decomposition. II. Thorax 1. Walls, ribs and cartilages. Of right side on 6th to 12th and left side 3rd to 12th ribs were present, no cut mark. 2. Pleurae, larynx and trachea, right lung, left lung, pericardium-heart, large vessels, right coronary, left coronary, were found missing. III. Abdomen 1. Walls. Lower half was missing due to decomposition. No evidence of stab seen on the upper half of the abdomen. Peritoneum, mouth, larynx and esophagus, stomach and its contents, large intestines and their contents, liver, spleen, kidneys were missing. Pleurae, larynx and trachea, right lung, left lung, pericardium-heart, large vessels, right coronary, left coronary, were found missing. III. Abdomen 1. Walls. Lower half was missing due to decomposition. No evidence of stab seen on the upper half of the abdomen. Peritoneum, mouth, larynx and esophagus, stomach and its contents, large intestines and their contents, liver, spleen, kidneys were missing. Bladder, organs of generation external and internal were decomposed and pulpy. IV. Muscles, Bones and Joints As described already and consisted to 1st postmortem report of Chamba, left upper extremity and cervical vertebrae were missing. According to his opinion, cause of death could not be known due to missing of almost half of the body and decomposition. No evidence of burn, ante mortem sharp injury or firearm injury was seen on the body. The time between injury and death was unknown and between death and post mortem was 10 days to 3 weeks. He could not detect any injury on the dead body due to decomposition and missing of body parts including viscera.” 11. PW5, Dr. Umesh Dhiman, deposed that on 29.5.2006, on the application moved by the police, Ext.PW5/A, post mortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted. He issued post mortem report, Ext.PW5/B. According to him, he could not give his opinion and the dead body was referred to Department of Forensic, Dr. RPGMC, Hospital, Tanda for forensic expert opinion. The dead body was identified in his presence by Samraj, brother and Harbans Singh, father, of the deceased by identifying bangles and other belongings etc. of the deceased. 12. PW6, HC Ramesh Chand, proved copies of D.D. No. 12, Ext.PW6/A and FIR, Ext.PW6/B. According to him, on 29.5.2006, SHO Jitender Kumar deposited with him two parcels. He entered the same in the malkhana register. 13. PW7, Constable Sanjiv Kumar, proved report, No.4, dated 17.5.2006 lodged by the accused Gurpreet Singh vide Ext.PW7/A. 14. PW8, HC Hans Raj, deposed that on 9.9.2006, Alto Car No. PB-02AH-1467 was taken into possession in his presence from Raman Kumar vide memo, Ext.PW8/A . 15. PW9, Rashpal, deposed that his wife owned Alto Car No. PB-02AH-1467. Accused Gurpreet Singh was his friend. On 14.5.2006, the accused Gurpreet Singh visited him and told that he wanted to go to Dalhousie for a trip with his wife and demanded the car. He gave the car to him. 16. 15. PW9, Rashpal, deposed that his wife owned Alto Car No. PB-02AH-1467. Accused Gurpreet Singh was his friend. On 14.5.2006, the accused Gurpreet Singh visited him and told that he wanted to go to Dalhousie for a trip with his wife and demanded the car. He gave the car to him. 16. PW10, S.I. Jagdish Chand, deposed that on 30.5.2006, the case file was entrusted to him for the search of the accused. He searched for the accused at Pathankot and Jallandhar, where he was posted. On 31.5.2006, he visited the Police Lines Jallandhar and recorded statement of Rajinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. He also obtained the absence report of the accused from his duties. On 1.6.2006, he again searched the accused at Amritsar. He received a telephonic message from the police station that the accused had moved an anticipatory bail application. 17. PW11, SI Abtar Singh, deposed that he had recorded supplementary statement of Harbans Singh on 17.5.2006. 18. PW12, ASI Mehar Singh, deposed that on 28.5.2006, he received Ruqua, Ext.PW1/A through Constable Shiv Kumar, on the basis of which, FIR, Ext.PW6/A was recorded. 19. PW13, ASI Har Narayan Singh, deposed that on 10.8.2006, he arrested the accused at Kandwal, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. The vehicle used by the accused for the commission of crime was taken into possession vide memo, Ext.PW8/A. 20. PW14, Inspector Jatinder Kumar, deposed that on 28.5.2006, at 11.00 A.M., HC Bhagi Ram informed telephonically that a dead body of female was found lying in Jurdu jungle, Khajjiar. He along with ASI Swaran Singh, Constable Shiv Kumar, LC Lata Devi and driver Udham Singh left to the spot. Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Mahinder Singh and other witnesses were taken to the spot. They found a dead body of a female in the Nallah below 50 mts on Dalhousie-Khajjiar road. He informed the parents of Rimple Kaur telephonically because her missing report was filed in the Police Station. Parents of the deceased reached the spot at 5.00 P.M.. They identified the dead body to be of Rimple Kaur from the shoes and pants recovered from the spot. One shoe was with the dead body and one shoe was lying at a distance of 100 metres from the dead body. Parents of the deceased reached the spot at 5.00 P.M.. They identified the dead body to be of Rimple Kaur from the shoes and pants recovered from the spot. One shoe was with the dead body and one shoe was lying at a distance of 100 metres from the dead body. He filled-in inquest reports, Ext.PW14/A and Ext.PW14/B He recorded statement of Harbans Lal vide Ext.PW1/A. He also prepared the spot map, Ext.PW14/C. Photographs of the spot were taken vide Ext.PW14/A-1 to Ext.PW14/A-4. He obtained post mortem reports Ext.PW4/B and Ext.PW5/B. In cross-examination, he deposed that Samraj Singh had stated before him that the accused had administered something in the beer, which made him unconscious. He had also recorded the statement of the salesman of the shop from were artificial jewelry was purchased by the accused. He denied the suggestion that the dead body was highly decomposed. He denied that the legs were missing. He volunteered that the legs were intact and one shoe was in one foot. Dalhousie was 16 or 18 kms away from the spot where the dead body was recovered. 21. PW15, Noor Bibi, deposed that on 27.5.2006, she was grazing cattle in the Jhurdu jungle. At about 6.00/6.30 P.M., when she was taking back her buffalo to the house, she noticed a dead body lying in the Nallah having maggots. Next day in the morning, she informed the Pradhan, Mohinder Singh. Thereafter, she along with Pradhan, police officials and other persons went to the spot. The parents of the deceased arrived at the spot in the evening at about 7.30 P.M.. Parents identified the dead body to be of their daughter. One pants and shoe were found lying at a little distance of dead body. 22. PW16, HC Harjinder Pal Singh, brought the summoned record, i.e. rapat roznamcha register pertaining to Police Station Lines, Jallandhar w.e.f 7.5.2006 to 24.5.2006. He proved Rapat Nos. 34 dated 15.5.2006, Rapat No.18 dated 18.5.2006 and Rapat No.3 dated 19.5.2006 vide Ext. PW16/A, Ext.PW16/B and Ext.PW16/C respectively. According to him, as per Rapat No.3 dated 19.5.2006, the accused was absent from duty in the morning roll call. 23. DW1, Basant Singh, deposed that the accused was his neighbour. Relations between accused and deceased were cordial. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know whether the accused was earlier married. PW16/A, Ext.PW16/B and Ext.PW16/C respectively. According to him, as per Rapat No.3 dated 19.5.2006, the accused was absent from duty in the morning roll call. 23. DW1, Basant Singh, deposed that the accused was his neighbour. Relations between accused and deceased were cordial. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know whether the accused was earlier married. He volunteered that he was told by his wife that earlier the accused got married with some lady. He obtained divorce from her. 24. DW2, Satnam Singh, deposed that he knew the accused and the deceased. The accused was having cordial relations with the deceased. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know about the relations of the accused with the deceased in the house because he never visited his house. 25. DW3, Raman Kumar, deposed that he knew Rashpal. He was his friend. He was on visiting terms with him. In the month of September 2006, he had gone to the house of Rashpal, but he was not present in the house. The police arrived there from Himachal Pradesh and demanded key of the Alto Car, which was parked there. Wife of Rashpal refused to give the key on the ground that her husband was not present in the house. The police persisted that the car was to be taken into possession and she gave key of the alto car. 26. DW4, Amarjeet Singh, deposed that he knew accused Gurpreet Singh. He was his neighbour. According to him in the second week of August 2006, at about 2.30 P.M., the accused was arrested by the police and he was taken in a vehicle. 27. DW5, Constable Ajay Singh proved Rapat Ext.PW7/A. As per report, Samraj Singh, brother-in-law of the accused was accompanying with him at the time of lodging of the FIR. In cross-examination, he deposed that brother-in-law of the accused Gurpreet Singh did not come inside the reporting room. However, only Gurpreet Singh had come inside the reporting room. 28. The learned trial court has taken into consideration following eight circumstances against the accused:- 1 The dead body was found to be of female by the Medical Officer and Forensic Expert. 2 The marriage of the accused with deceased was fraudulent marriage as he had concealed that he was already married with one Virender Kour. 28. The learned trial court has taken into consideration following eight circumstances against the accused:- 1 The dead body was found to be of female by the Medical Officer and Forensic Expert. 2 The marriage of the accused with deceased was fraudulent marriage as he had concealed that he was already married with one Virender Kour. 3 The accused had been beating and maltreating the deceased to meet his unlawful demand of dowry. 4 In order to execute a planned murder, he brought Samraj Singh, brother-in-law, who was grown up boy, with him and deceased despite the fact that both were newly married and all stayed in one room. 5 Beer was given to PW2 Samraj Singh to drink that his company is not required while he along with the deceased was going away. 6 No report of missing of his wife was made by him (accused) with the police on 16.5.2006 and after lodging missing report on 17.5.2006 he left Dalhousie without searching his wife and never came back. 7 The dead body of the deceased was identified by her father (PW1) and brother PW2 Samraj Singh from clothes and shoes which the deceased was wearing on the fateful evening. 8 The deceased was seen last in the company of the accused. 29. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the dead body could not be identified being highly decomposed and it cannot be said that the body was of a female. 30. We have also discussed the circumstances in the same seriatim, in which the learned trial court has discussed the circumstantial evidence. Circumstances No.1 and 7 31. The dead body of the deceased was spotted by PW15, Noor Bibi in Nallah on 27.5.2006 at about 6.00/6.30 P.M., when she was taking back her buffalo to the house from the jungle. The dead body was identified by PW1 Harbans Singh and PW2 Samraj Singh, father and brother of the deceased, respectively to be of Rimple Kaur. It has come in the statement of PW4, Dr. D.P. Swami that from the external appearance, the dead body was of a lady. Similarly, PW5 Dr. Umesh Dhiman also deposed that the dead body appeared to be of an adult female from her external appearance. It has come in the statement of PW4, Dr. D.P. Swami that from the external appearance, the dead body was of a lady. Similarly, PW5 Dr. Umesh Dhiman also deposed that the dead body appeared to be of an adult female from her external appearance. Pants, Ext.P2 and shoes, Ext.P3 which were taken into possession and sealed by the police in a parcel, Ext.P-1, were identified by the family members of the deceased to be belonging to her. PW3 Mahinder Kumar, also deposed that pants, Ext.P2 and shoes, Ext.P3 were identified by the relatives of the deceased Rimple Kaur to be belonging to her. PW5, Dr. Umesh Dhiman, conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased on 29.5.2006. According to him, since the dead body was decomposed the opinion asked for could not be given and the dead body was referred to Dr.R.P.G.M.C, Hospital, Tanda. PW4, Dr. D.P. Swami, deposed that the cause of death could not be ascertained due to missing of almost half of the body and decomposition. However, in cross-examination, he categorically deposed that the time between death and postmortem was 10 days to 3 weeks. It has come in the evidence that the deceased went missing on 16.5.2006. Initially the post mortem was conducted by PW5, Dr. Dhiman on 29.5.2006 and thereafter by PW4 Dr. D.P. Swami. It is also not the case of the accused that there was any missing report of any female at Police Station Chamba other than his wife Rimple Kaur. The prosecution has proved that the dead body was of Rimple Kaur on the basis of her belongings, which were identified by her relatives, i.e. PW1 Harbans Singh and PW2 Samraj Singh, father and brother of the deceased respectively. Circumstance No.2 32. It has come on record that the accused was earlier married. He had contracted second marriage with the deceased Rimple Kumari. The prosecution has also placed on record certified copy of divorce deed, Ext.PZ, showing that the accused had taken divorce from his first wife, namely, Virender Kaur on 24.1.2006. Circumstance No.3 33. It has come in the statement of PW1 Harbans Singh that the accused was married to the deceased about eight months prior to her death. The accused used to give beatings to the deceased for want of dowry. The accused had been demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Circumstance No.3 33. It has come in the statement of PW1 Harbans Singh that the accused was married to the deceased about eight months prior to her death. The accused used to give beatings to the deceased for want of dowry. The accused had been demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. PW2, Samraj Singh, also deposed that the accused used to hurl abuses to the deceased and had been demanding a sum of Rs.5,000,00/-. It has also come in the statement of PW1 Harbans Singh recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., that the accused had been demanding the money from the deceased. According to PW1, Harbans Singh, he could arrange for only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- that too from husband of his sister-in-law. Merely that PW1, Harbans Singh, father of the deceased had not reported the matter qua demand of Rs.5,00,000/- would not discredit his statement that the accused was demanding money from the deceased on account of dowry and giving beatings to her on this count. Circumstance No.4 34. It has come in the statement of PW1 Harbans Singh that the accused told him that he wanted to go to Dalhousie with the deceased. He also requested him to send his brother-in-law, PW2 Samraj Singh with him. PW1, Harbans Singh acceded to his request and sent PW2 Samarj Singh with them. According to the record, on 14.5.2006, they stayed at Khajjiar and on 15.5.2006 they came to Dalhousie. They had taken single room bearing No.111 in Chaman Hotel. We do not understand why the accused wanted his brother-in-law, PW2 Samraj Singh to accompany him to Dalhousie. PW2 Samraj Singh was 18 years old. PW2 Samraj Singh stayed with them in Room No.111. The accused and the deceased were newly married couple. The only reason, which can be gathered from the circumstance, is that the accused had planned to kill his wife and just to avoid any suspicion, he requested his father-in-law PW1 Harbans Singh to send his brother-in-law PW2 Samraj Singh with him. Circumstance No.5 35. According to PW2, Samraj Singh, all of them stayed in a single room in Hotel Chaman. On 16.5.2006, they went to Bazaar. The accused purchased a knife along with other articles in the bazaar. He also purchased artificial jewelry for the deceased. The accused got removed the original ornaments, which the deceased was wearing and he handed over to her artificial jewelry. On 16.5.2006, they went to Bazaar. The accused purchased a knife along with other articles in the bazaar. He also purchased artificial jewelry for the deceased. The accused got removed the original ornaments, which the deceased was wearing and he handed over to her artificial jewelry. The accused told him that he along with the deceased was going outside, where his presence was not required. A bottle of beer was served to him by the accused. According to him, he became drowsy because something was mixed in the beer. Circumstance No.6 36. The accused lodged the missing report, Ext.PW7/A only on 17.5.2006 at about 9.30 A.M.. The deceased went missing on 16.5.2006. The accused was serving in the Police Department. He knew that once a person went missing, the missing report/FIR was required to be lodged immediately. Why he waited for next day to lodge the report has not been explained by him. According to PW7/A, on 16.5.2006 after visiting local market of Dalhousie, they reached at G.P.O. Chowk. He asked the deceased to stay for a while there to enable him to park the vehicle in the hotel. However, after ten minutes, when he and his brother-in-law came back to the Chowk after parking the vehicle, the deceased was not found there. They tried to search the deceased, but could not locate her. They went to hotel and again searched her, but the deceased did not come to hotel till 11.00 P.M.. Most surprisingly, the missing report was lodged on 17.5.2006 and the accused came back to Jallandhar on 18.5.2006. If his wife had gone missing, he would have stayed at Dalhousie and assisted the police to trace out her. It has been duly proved on record that he joined his duties on 18.5.2006 as per Rapat No.18 dated 18.5.2006. The accused had all alone gone inside the reporting room to lodge missing report of his wife on 17.5.2006 as per statement of DW5, Constable Ajay Singh. The accused had not taken PW2 Samraj Singh inside the reporting room as he wanted to give wrong description of colour of the clothes worn by the deceased in the report, Ext.PW7/A in order to confuse the police. There is no material on record to suggest remotely that the accused ever made enquires from the Dalhousie Police about the status of missing report or his wife. There is no material on record to suggest remotely that the accused ever made enquires from the Dalhousie Police about the status of missing report or his wife. The conduct of the accused was very unnatural. No efforts were at all made by him to locate his wife. Circumstance No.8 37. The prosecution has led tangible evidence on record to establish that the accused, the deceased and PW2 Samraj Singh stayed in Room No.111 in Chaman Hotel at Dalhousie. The distance between Dalhousie and the place where the dead body was found lying was about 16-18 kms. According to PW2 Samraj Singh, on 16.5.2006, the accused was drinking outside the room. The accused received a telephonic call and the deceased enquired from the accused the name of the person who was making him call. The accused became angry. The deceased also got annoyed from the accused. Thereafter, the accused pacified the deceased. Thereafter, all of them left the hotel to Bazaar. Accused purchased a knife along with other articles and artificial jewelry in the bazaar. The accused got removed the original ornaments, which his sister was wearing and he handed over to her artificial jewelry. Thereafter, the accused told him that he along with the deceased was going outside where his presence was not required. The accused offered him a bottle of beer. He became drowsy because something was mixed in the beer. PW2, Samraj Singh, further deposed that when he came out of the room, accused told him that his sister had bought articles and required money. He asked him to hand over Rs.600/- to her in the bazaar. He went to bazaar, but the deceased was not found there. He came back and accused met him at the Chowk. He told the accused that the deceased was not in the bazaar. He returned the money to him. PW2 Samraj Singh was not contradicted that the deceased had not gone together with the accused or that he was not kept back in the hotel room. He was also not contradicted that the accused had not come all alone to the hotel. No waiter of hotel was examined by the accused that the room was closed at about 6.00 P.M.. It has come on record that all of them had gone to Khajjiar on 14.5.2006 and came back to Dalhousie next day. He was also not contradicted that the accused had not come all alone to the hotel. No waiter of hotel was examined by the accused that the room was closed at about 6.00 P.M.. It has come on record that all of them had gone to Khajjiar on 14.5.2006 and came back to Dalhousie next day. Learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused had already undertaken recce in the area in order to kill his wife and dispose off her body in the jungle. In Ext.PW7/A, there is no mention of time when his wife went missing. It is duly established that the deceased was seen last in the company of the accused. It was for the accused to explain where his wife was and what happened with her since he alone could know or tell about this fact. 38. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 have held that where prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that (i) either the husband and wife were last seen together, (or) the offence was committed in the dwelling house, where husband also resided, and if the accused husband offers no explanation as to the injuries received by his wife or if the explanation is false, there is strong circumstances which indicates that he committed the crime. Their Lordships have further held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Their Lordships have held as under: “12. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships have held as under: “12. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [ See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [ See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]. 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” 39. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 have held that the accused’s failure to give satisfactory explanation to an incriminating circumstance which was within his special knowledge amounts to failure to discharge the onus which lies on accused under section 106 of Evidence Act. This itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Their Lordships have held as under: 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. This itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Their Lordships have held as under: 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatiable with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218.” 40. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dnyaneshwar vs State of Maharashtra, (2007) 10 SCC 445 have held that when the deceased found murdered in her matrimonial home and the possibility of any outsider committing the offence ruled out, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his cause that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his cause that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access. It is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) (1) SCALE 19, this court held: "22. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions Jude as also by the High Court categorically go to show that at the time when the occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other person. The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e. by a gun short injury is not disputed. The fact that the tcrracc and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in dispute. 23. The autopsy report shows that 'a blackening and charring' existed so far as Injury No. (i) is concerned. The blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go the show that a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a short the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet. The place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound was found over grabellai middle of forehead. It goes a long way to show that the same must have been done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other person, who was not in the terrace. The lacerated wound was found over grabellai middle of forehead. It goes a long way to show that the same must have been done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other person, who was not in the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show that a the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same." 41. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda alias Murli Manohar Mishra vs State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 288 have held that failure of accused husband to explain how his wife met with an unnatural death in their bedroom, provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances. Their Lordships have held as under: “34. If it is proved that the deceased died in an unnatural circumstance in her bed room, which was occupied only by her and her husband, law requires the husband to offer an explanation in this behalf. We, however, do not intend to lay down a general law in this behalf as much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Absence of any explanation by the husband would lead to an inference which would lead to a circumstance against the accused.” 42. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that even though the deceased might have been seen last in the company of the accused, it was on 16.5.2006 and the dead body was found on 27.5.2006. 43. The accused cannot take benefit of the fact that he was seen last in the company of the deceased on 16.5.2006, whereas dead body of the deceased was found on 27.5.2006. The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused on 16.5.2006. The accused concealed her dead body in a Nallah. It could not be seen by any person. It was PW15 Noor Mohd., who spotted the dead body of the deceased on 27.5.2006 while taking her cattle back to the house. The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused on 16.5.2006. The accused concealed her dead body in a Nallah. It could not be seen by any person. It was PW15 Noor Mohd., who spotted the dead body of the deceased on 27.5.2006 while taking her cattle back to the house. In these circumstances last seen theory would not get diluted only for the reason that the deceased went missing on 16.5.2006 and her dead body was found on 27.5.2006. The Court has to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances whether the accused can be given benefit of time elapsed between missing of the deceased and recovery of her dead body and that he being the alone who was seen last in the company of the deceased. The conduct of the accused being husband was highly suspicious and unnatural. On 16.5.2006, he kept his brother-in-law PW2 Samraj Singh in the hotel and took the deceased with him outside saying that his presence was not required. The deceased went missing on 16.5.2006. He lodged the missing report on 17.5.2006 instead of 16.5.2006. He instead of helping the police to find out his wife came back to Jallandhar and joined his duties on 18.5.2006 itself as per Ext.PW16/B. He never made inquiries from the Dalhousie/Chamba Police about missing of his wife. The prosecution has proved the link evidence, which only points out that the accused had murdered his wife and thereafter disposed off her dead body. 44. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Advocate, has also argued that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed that the accused took his wife towards Khajjiar and killed her and then came back to the hotel. According to him distance from the hotel to Khajjiar was more than 23 kms. 45. The place where the dead body was found was only 16-18 kms away from the Chaman Hotel where the accused had taken room. He had gone with the deceased outside in the car. He had sufficient time to take the car towards Khajjiar in order to kill the deceased and dispose off her dead body in a Nallah and come back within less than two hours. 46. The prosecution besides proving the last seen theory has also established the connection between the accused and the crime, as discussed hereinabove, after scanning the entire evidence. 46. The prosecution besides proving the last seen theory has also established the connection between the accused and the crime, as discussed hereinabove, after scanning the entire evidence. The conduct of the accused before and after commission of the crime was unnatural. The deceased went missing on 16.5.2006. Missing report was lodged on 17.5.2006. He joined his duties on 18.6.2006. No steps were taken by him to ascertain the status of missing report. His conduct of leaving behind his brother-in-law PW2 Samraj Singh in the hotel and thereafter taking a false plea that the wife had gone missing when he had gone to park the vehicle is highly doubtful. The accused was in the company of his wife till 16.5.2006 and he has not explained satisfactorily about disappearance of his wife from a small hill station. The body has been identified by PW1 Harbans Singh and PW2 Samraj Singh on the basis of the clothes and shoes worn by the deceased and her face. 47. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive to kill deceased by the accused. 48. It is evident from the statements of PW1 Harbans Singh and DW1 Basant Singh that the deceased was his second wife. PW1 Harbans Singh and PW2 Samraj Singh categorically deposed that the accused had been demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased. In fact, PW1 Harbans Singh could arrange for only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- that too from the husband of his sister-in-law. The deceased was being given beatings by the accused for want of dowry. The accused meticulously planned to kill his wife by taking her to Dalhousie that too in the company of his brother-in-law. Where the proved circumstances complete chain of the evidence, the motive may not be of any consequence. In the present case, chain of events is complete. 49. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 690 have held that the motive need not be established precisely showing of the possible mental element which could have been the cause of the crime would be sufficient. Their Lordships have held as under:- “18. 49. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 690 have held that the motive need not be established precisely showing of the possible mental element which could have been the cause of the crime would be sufficient. Their Lordships have held as under:- “18. The third contention is that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not established and hence the area remains gray as to what would have impelled them to liquidate the broker. No doubt it is the allegation of the prosecution that appellants owed a sum of Rs. one lakh to the deceased and it might not have been possible for the prosecution to prove that aspect to the hilt. Nonetheless some materials were produced for showing that there were transactions between the appellants and the deceased and that they had some account to be settled. Only thus far could be established but not further. It is generally an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely would have impelled the murderers to kill a particular person. All that prosecution in many cases could point to is the possible mental element which could have been the cause of the murder. In this connection we deem it useful to refer to the observations of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 : (Para 33 of AIR, Cri LJ): (1999 AIR SCW 982 : AIR 1999 SC 1293 : 1999 Cri LJ 2025) "No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed it the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on' record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended." 19. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended." 19. An earlier decision of this Court in Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238 , which dealt with the same aspect, has been referred to therein and a passage therefrom has been extracted. We are, therefore, not persuaded to change the tide on account of the inability of the prosecution to prove the motive aspect to the hilt. (1997 AIR SCW 1158 : AIR 1997 SC 1808 )” 50. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 593, have held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. Their lordships have held as under:- 45. The argument that in absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased benefit of reasonable doubt should be given, cannot be accepted. First of all every suspicion is not a doubt. Only reasonable doubt gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a vacillating judge. Very often a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability that the offence was committed by the person who was prompted by the motive. In a case when the motive alleged against accused is fully established, it provides foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. It afforts a key on a pointer to scan the evidence in the case in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof. There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Effect of absence of motive would depend on the facts of each case. There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Effect of absence of motive would depend on the facts of each case. Therefore, this Court proposes to examine the question of motive which prompted the appellant to commit the crime in question. 46. The prosecution has alleged that the appellant had dislike for his deceased wife as he was suspecting that he had not fathered the child and he was contemplating to marry another girl. Some of the letters produced by the prosecution would indicate that the deceased was suffering a lot because of unnatural conduct of the appellant towards her. The evidence of mother of the deceased would also show that the deceased was subjected to harassment. The finding recorded by the High Court that from a letter relied upon by the defence i.e. Exhibit D-2 it transpires that the appellant was harassing the deceased and treating her with cruelty because he was desirous of marrying some other girl cannot be ignored. The contents of other letters produced by the defence namely Exhibit D-5, D-6 and D-9 indicate that there was definitely something wrong between the appellant and his wife. They also indicate that the appellant was suspecting character of the deceased and definitely causing mental cruelty to her. This constitutes sufficient motive on the part of the appellant to kill his wife and child. It may be mentioned that the appellant had initiated divorce proceedings against deceased. Those proceedings were dismissed for default. No doubt, these are letters prior to divorce proceedings but they definitely give indication as to the character and conduct of the appellant towards deceased. 51. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 439 have held that if motive is proved, that would supply a link in chain of circumstantial evidence, but absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case. Their Lordships have held as under:- “29. 51. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 439 have held that if motive is proved, that would supply a link in chain of circumstantial evidence, but absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case. Their Lordships have held as under:- “29. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 , this Court rejected the submission that as no question had been put to the accused on motive, no motive for the commission of the crime could be attributed to the accused, nor the same could be reckoned as circumstance against him observing that it could not be pointed out as to what in fact was the real prejudice caused to the accused by omission to question the accused on the motive for the crime. No material was placed before the court to show as to what and in what manner the prejudice, if any, was caused to the accused. More so, the accused/appellant was aware of accusation and charge against him. 54. So far as the issue of motive is concerned, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Suresh Chandra Bahri (supra). Therefore, it does not require any further elaborate discussion. More so, if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. (Vide: State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing [supra])” 52. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amitava Banerjee alias Amit State of West Bengal (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 554 have held that motive for commission of an offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available but failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. In such case courts only have to be more careful and circumspect in scrutinizing evidence to ensure that suspicion does not take the place of proof while finding accused guilty. Their Lordships have held as under:- 41. Motive for the commission of an offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of the offence is available. Their Lordships have held as under:- 41. Motive for the commission of an offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of the offence is available. And yet failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. All that the absence of motive for the commission of the offence results in is that the court shall have to be more careful and circumspect in scrutinizing the evidence to ensure that suspicion does not take the place of proof while finding the accused guilty. 42. Absence of motive in a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence is a factor that shall no doubt weigh in favour of the accused, but what the Courts need to remember is that motive is a matter which is primarily known to the accused and which the prosecution may at times find difficult to explain or establish by substantive evidence. 43. Human nature being what it is, it is often difficult to fathom the real motivation behind the commission of a crime. And yet experience about human nature, human conduct and the frailties of human mind has shown that inducements to crime have veered around to what Wills has in his book "Circumstantial Evidence" said: "The common inducements to crime are the desires of revenging some real or fancied wrong; of getting rid of rival or an obnoxious connection; of escaping from the pressure of pecuniary or other obligation or burden of obtaining plunder or other coveted object; or preserving reputation, either that of general character or the conventional reputation or profession or sex; or gratifying some other selfish or malignant passion." 44. The legal position as to the significance of motive and effect of its absence in a given case is fairly well-settled by the decisions of this Court to which we need not refer in detail to avoid burdening this judgment unnecessarily. See Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B. 1994 (2) SCC 220 , Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 91, Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 367, Jagdish v. State of M.P., 2009 (12) Scale 580, Mulakh Raj and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors. 1992 (3) SCC 43 . 53. See Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of W.B. 1994 (2) SCC 220 , Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 91, Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 367, Jagdish v. State of M.P., 2009 (12) Scale 580, Mulakh Raj and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors. 1992 (3) SCC 43 . 53. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases, 401 have held as under:- 16. This is a case relying entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses of the crime. It is true that motive is important in cases of circumstantial evidence, but that does not mean that in all cases of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution has been unable to satisfactorily prove a motive its case must fail. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. As is often said, men may lie but circumstances do not. 21. As to what motivated the appellant to commit this gruesome and ghastly act is impossible for us to say because the Court cannot enter into the mind of a human being and find out his motive. We can only speculate. 54. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Habib vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 568 have held that if there is direct trustworthy evidence as to commission of offence, motive part loses its significance. Their Lordships have held as under:- 8. Sammo, sister of Hamid, as already stated, was married to accused -Habib, son of Manuwa and the third accused Bhappa is real brother of Manuwa and uncle of Habib. Sammo left the matrimonial home due to strained relationship with Habib, the accused. Prior to the incident the deceased and PW 1 had settled the marriage of Sammo with somebody before getting divorce from Habib. The motive for the murder was the strained relationship between the accused persons and PW 1 and the deceased. It is settled legal position that if there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to the commission of offence, motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the occurrence is proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. Therefore, if the genesis of the occurrence is proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. This legal position has been settled by this Court in its Judgment in Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC 654 and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 12 SCC 91 . 55. The prosecution has proved the case against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the manner in which he killed his newly married wife in a Nallah at Jhardu jungle and concealed her dead body away from public gaze. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. We find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned trial court. 56. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.