JUDGMENT By the Court.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etawah dated 28.2.1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1986. The accused appellants Jai Singh and Moti Lal have been convicted of an offence under Section 147 IPC, for which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and for an offence under Section 302 IPC, for which they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each as also for an offence under Section 201 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,00/- each and lastly for the offence under Section 342 for which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. We may also record that appellant Moti Lal was reported to have expired and accordingly his appeal was abated under order dated 26.8.2014. Therefore, for all practical purposes the appeal of Jai Singh only survives. 3. The prosecution story as reflected from the records is as follows : A First Information Report was registered on 13th August, 1984 on 9.30 p.m. at police station-Basrehar, district-Etawah by one Sri Deshraj Singh Singh. It was stated in the First Information Report that the daughter of the informant, namely, Munni Devi was married nearly 3 years ago to Jai Singh in accordance with the Hindu rituals. Father of Munni Devi could not provide dowry as per the expectation of the husband and his family members, because of which the accused started maltreating Munni Devi. It was stated that Munni Devi had made specific complaint in that regard with the informant earlier. The informant had visited Mohabbatpur, the village where the in-laws used to reside. He explained to them that he is not in a position to provide steel utensils Almira and motorcycle. As and when money is collected, he shall do the needful. On this father-in-law, namely, Moti Lal informed that the marriage of his daughter namely Janeshwari Devi is to be performed in near future therefore steel utensils asked for be provided at the earliest, failing which they will not sent Munni Devi to her parents house. As and when money is collected, he shall do the needful. On this father-in-law, namely, Moti Lal informed that the marriage of his daughter namely Janeshwari Devi is to be performed in near future therefore steel utensils asked for be provided at the earliest, failing which they will not sent Munni Devi to her parents house. On this the informant called upon Rameshwar Dayal, who was the mediator in the marriage, alongwith other and informed them of what ever had taken place. The aforesaid persons intervened and insisted that in-laws must not harass Munni Devi nor they shall beat her, to which no satisfactory reply has been given by the in-laws. This had happened one months earlier. On 11th August, 1985 the informant had reached the village where her daughter was residing after marriage, namely Mohabbadpur to bring her home in view of forthcoming festival of Raksha Bandhan. He on reaching the place of residence of in-laws requested the fater-in-law to sent Munni Devi with him. On this father-in-law requested the informant to stay over night. The informant alongwith other residents of his village, namely Bhikhari Das and Hem Singh had dinner. Thereafter Munni Devi requested the informant to take her with him otherwise the in-laws would kill her, inasmuch as she was threatened everyday that the in-laws will see as to what extent her father makes abuse. After having dinner he lay on the cot outside the house. He discussed the problem with Ram Dayal, Raghunath and Mohan, the aforesaid persons left after consoling the informant. At around 1-1.30 hours in the night the informant could hear shrieks from inside the house. The informant alongwith Bhikhari and Hem Singh woke up and run inside the house. They could see that Jai Singh and Moti Lal were pressing the Lathi kept on the neck of Munni Devi, while Sheoram, mother-in-law and Janeshwari Devi were also holding her tight. On seeing the informant, they left Munni Devi, but by that time she had already expired. The accused pushed the informant and others into a room and closed the door from outside. Thereafter they took away the dead body of Munni Devi to unknown place. On seeing the informant, they left Munni Devi, but by that time she had already expired. The accused pushed the informant and others into a room and closed the door from outside. Thereafter they took away the dead body of Munni Devi to unknown place. The informant was released only on 12th August, 1985 at around 12-1 p.m. and he has immediately come to police station to lodge the First Information Report, which was not registered and he was kept awaiting till 11 p.m. The informant thereafter came to Etawah and lodged the First Information Report, which was registered as Case Crime No. 118 of 1985 under Section 147/149/302/201/342 IPC and under Section 4 D.P. Act. 4. On 14th August, 1985 a dead body was seen in the canal (Nahar) nearby the village Bhanpur. One Kamlesh recognized the same to be of Munni Devi. Information of the same was given to the police station. Sub Inspector Moti Singh reached the spot and prepared the Panchayatnama photo lash etc. and after preparation of the necessary documents forwarded the dead body for postmortem. The postmortem of the dead body was done by a team of 7 doctors on 16th August, 1985 led by Dr. S.C. Gupta. The medical report submitted was marked as Exhibit-Ka-3. The investigation was started by S.I. Harishchandra Pandey, who prepared the site plan. On 24.9.1985 the investigation was taken over by Deputy Superintendent of Police Nand Kishor Tyagi, who visited the spot of incident and examined the records. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced the informant father as P.W.-1. Bhajan Lal, who was the village Chawkidar and who had seen the dead body at lower Ganga Canal Lakhna, was examined as P.W.-2. Kamlesh, who had identified the dead body as that of Munni Devi, was examined as P.W.-3. Dr. S.C. Gupta, who led the team of doctors who conducted the postmortem, was examined as P.W.-4. Anil Kumar, who was one of the persons at the time of preparation of Panchayatnama, was examined as P.W.-5. Sub Inspector Moti Singh, who had recorded the information of an unidentified body lying near the canal (Nahar) on 14.8.1985, was examined as P.W.-6. Head Moharrir Het Singh, who had prepared chik F.I.R., was examined as P.W.-7. Anil Kumar, who was one of the persons at the time of preparation of Panchayatnama, was examined as P.W.-5. Sub Inspector Moti Singh, who had recorded the information of an unidentified body lying near the canal (Nahar) on 14.8.1985, was examined as P.W.-6. Head Moharrir Het Singh, who had prepared chik F.I.R., was examined as P.W.-7. Nand Kishore Tyagi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had completed the investigation, was examined as P.W.-8. Harishchandra Pandey, S.I., Usarahar Police Station, who had got the chik F.I.R. registered on the basis of the typed report, was examined as P.W.-9. Triloki Nath Dixit, who had taken the photographs of the dead body lying near the canal, was examined as P.W.-10. 6. The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 I.P.C., who denied the charges leveled. They admitted the marriage of Munni Devi with Jai Singh to have taken place nearly three years earlier. It was also admitted that Moti Lal was the father of accused Jai Singh, while the accused Premwati was the wife of Moti Lal. Janeshwari was the daughter of Moti Lal, while Shiv Ram was nephew of Moti Lal. They, however, denied the charges as leveled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated for the purposes of extracting money. 7. Deshraj Singh, who was the sole eye-witness of incident and was examined as P.W.-1, narrated the story as was disclosed in the First Information Report and also proved the First Information Report which was lodged as well as the endorsement of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 13.8.1985. 8. The trial Court after considering the evidence brought on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge with certainty against the accused and accordingly convicted them of the offenses as noticed above and sentenced them as detailed. 9. Challenging the order so passed by the trial Court Sri Sanjiv Ratan, counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that the case of the prosecution, that the first informant alongwith Bhikhari and Hem Singh was pushed inside a room and locked therein for one full day, appears to be highly improbable. In the report submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police they had not stated so and therefore the entire prosecution story appears to be doubtful. In the report submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police they had not stated so and therefore the entire prosecution story appears to be doubtful. It is then contended that although Bhikhari and Hem Singh were shown in the First Information Report to be present at the time of incident but deliberately they were not produced as prosecution witness during trial, which also leads to an inference that the prosecution story was false. There was absolutely no mention of the source of light in the prosecution evidence, which creates a lacuna in the prosecution story and discredits the same. It is pointed out that the identification of the dead body itself is doubtful, inasmuch as at the time the dead body was recovered it had decomposed. It is submitted that death was stated to have been caused to Munni Devi on 11.8.1985, while the report of recovery of the dead body was made at the police station on 14.8.1985 at 14.20 hours. Meaning thereby that more than 60 hours had lapsed from the time of death. With reference to the Modi’s medical jurisprudence it is stated that the dead body decomposes after passage of such long time and it is difficult to identify the same. It is lastly submitted that from the postmortem report itself it was established that the body could not be identified, the benefit whereof must flow in favour of the accused. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present criminal appeal. So far as the first contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellants is concerned, it may be noticed that merely because in the information sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police there was no mention of name of Bhikhari and Hem Singh, who were locked in the room alongwith the first informant, it will not result in the case as disclosed in the First Information Report to be untrue. Such discrepancy will not be fatal to the prosecution story. As a matter of fact from the statement of Jai Singh and the side plan prepared (Exhibit Ka-11) it was established that the informant was pushed inside the room and locked from outside immediately after the incident. 11. Such discrepancy will not be fatal to the prosecution story. As a matter of fact from the statement of Jai Singh and the side plan prepared (Exhibit Ka-11) it was established that the informant was pushed inside the room and locked from outside immediately after the incident. 11. So far as the non-production of Bhikhari and Hem Singh as prosecution witness is concerned, the informant Deshraj Singh in his testimony had specifically stated that the aforesaid two persons were not ready and willing to disclose the complete facts and therefore they were not produced as prosecution witness. The trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that because of non-production of the aforesaid two persons as prosecution witness will not in any way affect the statement of P.W.-1, who was an eyewitness of the incident. In his testimony he had narrated the incident as was disclosed in the First Information Report. 12. So far as the source of light at the time of incident in concerned, Deshraj Singh P.W.-1 had specifically stated in his testimony that on the date of incident the night was dark and when he entered into the house after hearing the shriek, he could see with the help of light provided by lamp, which was kept on the Chulha in the Angan. It was, therefore, established that there was sufficient light with the help of which the first informant could see the accused committing the offence. Merely because no source of light had been mentioned in the site plan, it will not adversely reflect upon the evidence of the prosecution. The manner in which the deceased was put to death by the accused as was disclosed in the oral testimony by P.W.-1 and as stated in the First Information Report. No material discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution could be pointed out by the accused before us. 13. So far as the identification of the dead body of the deceased Munni Devi is concerned, it is no doubt true that according to Modi’s medical jurisprudence after 48 hours decomposition of the body starts and it becomes difficult to identify the same. However, we may take note of the fact that P.W.-3 Kamlesh Kumar in his statement on oath had stated that he had seen the dead body of Munni Devi on 14th August, 1985. However, we may take note of the fact that P.W.-3 Kamlesh Kumar in his statement on oath had stated that he had seen the dead body of Munni Devi on 14th August, 1985. The P.W.-1, after looking into photographs, which were taken on the spot, had identified the same to be that of Munni Devi. From the Panchnama (Exhibit Ka-2) the dead body was identified to be that of Munni Devi by the witness to the Panchnama. We may also take note that the photographer Triloki Nath Dixit was examined as P.W.-10, who on oath have identified the photographs taken by him of the dead body, which were identified by Deshraj Singh to be that of Munni Devi. 14. In our opinion the evidence so produced is sufficient to lead to a conclusive finding that the dead body as recovered on 14.8.1985 was that of Munni Devi. 15. Even otherwise in the case of Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab and another Etc., (2012) 1 SCC 10 , the Apex Court in paragraph 28 has held as follows: “28. CORPUS DELICTI - Recovery of: In Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2002 SC 2920 , this Court held that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish Corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without any trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in many a case, the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed to such an extent which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. What is, therefore, required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced. What is, therefore, required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced. (See also: Ram Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 ; Ashok Laxman Sohoni and another v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1319 ; and Rama Nand and others v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 738 ) Therefore, in a murder case, it is not necessary that the dead body of the victim should be found and identified, i.e. conviction for offence of murder does not necessarily depend upon Corpus delicti being found. The Corpus delicti in a murder case has two components - death as result, and criminal agency of another as the means. Where there is a direct proof of one, the other may be established by circumstantial evidence.” 16. We may record that the discrepancies highlighted by the counsel for the appellant with reference to the testimony of the various witnesses are all trivial in nature. They do not adversely reflect upon the prosecution story as narrated in the First Information Report and corroborated by ocular testimony and other records. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Lokesh Shivkumar v. State of Karnataka; (2012) 3 SCC 196 , has held that if the First Information Report is prompt and the incident, as stated therein is supported by the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, then the prosecution can be said to have brought home the charge with certainty. 18. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh; (2011) 4 SCC 324 , has also explained as to what are trivial contradiction and what are material contradiction affecting the prosecution story. 19. Trivial discrepancies will not result in the prosecution version being disbelieved, as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 . It has been held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. It has been held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. Judged in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, we are satisfied that the judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 147, 342, 201, 302 IPC and punishing him for the same warrants no interference. Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Appellant Jai Singh is on bail, his bail is cancelled, bail bonds are forfeited. He may be arrested to undergo the sentence. ——————