JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, District Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 19/1994 whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW-7 Khiya Ram submitted a written report Ex.P/6 to the S.H.O., Police Station, Balotra at 4:30 PM on 18.6.1994 wherein it is stated that his son Bhanwar Lal has two wives. His elder wife is Basanti Devi and younger wife is Tijo. He further stated that Basanti Devi is having three issues (two daughters and one son aged about 2 years and his name is Bhajan Lal). Second wife Tijo has been coming to her in-law's house from about two years and after that Basanti Devi and Tijo used to quarrel with each other. He further stated that his son Bhanwar Lal went to Khategaon, Madhya Pradesh on 17.6.1994 and after having dinner his both daughters-in-law with children slept in the courtyard and he slept outside near camel. At about 12:00 AM in the night, he heard two light blast in the Dhani, then he reached the gate of Dhani and called someone, then his younger daughter-in-law Tijo told him that a cat was trying to open the door and when she threw a stick on the cot, it sounded. After hearing this, he again went to sleep. In the morning, when he wake up, he found that his elder daughter-in-law and younger grand-son Bhajan Lal were not in the Dhani, then he inquired about them and was informed by his grand daughters that Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal were not in the house. Then he asked them to inquire from the accused-respondent Tijo and she told that they might have gone somewhere in the early morning. Thereafter he called his brother Chuna Ram, nephew Raju, master Ramlal, nephew Lakha Ram and sister-in-law Soni, Chuni wife of Raju, Sugni wife of Lakha Ram and asked them to inquire about Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal from Tijo. After suppressing for about two hours, Tijo started crying and stated that she committed a mistake and they should not report the matter. After suppressing for about two hours, Tijo started crying and stated that she committed a mistake and they should not report the matter. She also stated that she has killed Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal by axe because she used to instigate about her to her husband. She also informed that she buried dead bodies of Basanti and Bhajan Lal in the back of the house. 3. After receiving said report, FIR No. 191/1994 (Ex.P/15) was registered at Police Station Balotra at 5 PM on 18.6.1994 against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and later on the police arrested the accused-respondent vide Ex.P/17 at about 7:45 PM. At about 8:00 PM, the police recorded the information under Section 27 of Evidence Act (Ex.P/18) given by the accused-respondent regarding the place where the dead bodies were buried and vide Ex.P/19, the police recovered the dead bodies on 19.6.1994. On 20.6.1994, the police also recovered an axe (Ex.P/23) and a spade (Ex.P/26) at the instance of accused-respondent. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The matter was committed to the trial court and charges were framed against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. 4. During trial, the prosecution produced as many as 17 witnesses and also exhibited several documents and articles. The statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she had denied the charges and claimed that she reached her in-law's house only at about 11:00 AM on 18.6.1994 and she has falsely been implicated in this case. Three witnesses were also produced in defence. 5. Learned trial court, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused-respondent and after pondering over the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and in defence, has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. 6. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order, the appellant-State of Rajasthan has filed the present appeal. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent though the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges levelled against her for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent though the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges levelled against her for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the trial court has grossly erred in disbelieving the statement of PW-17 Girja, who was the eye witness of the incident. It is submitted that she was a child witness and the trial court has disbelieved her testimony only on the basis of some minor contradictions, which are of no relevance. He has further argued that the trial court has also grossly erred in disbelieving the statements of PW-1 Ram Lal, PW-2 Chuna Ram, PW-3 Lakha Ram, PW-6 Smt. Soni and PW-7 Khiya Ram, in front of whom, the accused-respondent confessed about murder of Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal. It is submitted that the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of said witnesses without giving any justifiable reason. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the trial court had erred in observing that PW 7 Khiya Ram had lodged the complaint regarding incident after a delay though such delay has been satisfactorily explained by him. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the trial court has grossly erred in not relying upon the recovery of the dead bodies at the instance of accused-respondent though the prosecution has proved the said recovery beyond reasonable doubt. He has further stated that the prosecution has also proved the recovery of axe, spade and blood stained cloths of the accused-respondent at her instance, but the trial court has erred in not relying on the said recoveries. It is contended that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the accused-respondent by producing eye-witness PW-17 Girja, by proving the recoveries of dead bodies, axe, spade and blood stained cloths of accused-respondent at the instance of accused-respondent and also proved her extra judicial confession before the witnesses, but the trial court has illegally not relied upon the same and has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30.11.1995 may be set aside. 9. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scrutinised the record. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30.11.1995 may be set aside. 9. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scrutinised the record. 10. To prove the charges against the accused-respondent, the prosecution had produced one eye-witness PW-17 Girja aged about 9 years. In her statement, she had stated that in the intervening night of 17.6.1994 and 18.6.1994, she saw the accused-respondent assaulting the deceased Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal and thereafter burring their dead bodies. She stated that she was sleeping and when her cot was stumbled by Tijo, she wake up and saw Tijo holding an axe. She further stated that Tijo threatened her not to see anything otherwise she would kill her. In her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she told Khiya Ram about the incident at about 12:00 noon on the next day. She also stated in her cross-examination that husband of Tijo and Basanti Devi, Bhanwar Lal reached the spot in the morning. She also stated that the police has also reached the spot in the morning. It is noticed that PW-7 Khiya Ram, in the complaint Ex.P/6 or in his statement recorded before the Court, has nowhere stated that PW-17 Girja had informed him about the incident in the morning at about 12:00 noon. It is also noticed that though PW-17 Girja was present at the scene of crime, when the police reached there for the first time in the evening of 18.6.1994 but her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the police for the first time after four days of the incident. The trial court has observed that the testimony of PW-17 regarding witnessing the incident is not reliable as first of all, her statements were recorded after four days of the incident, though she was very much present when the police reached the spot. As per her statement, she had informed PW-7 Khiya Ram about the fact that she is a witness of the incident, but Khiya Ram did not disclose the same either in the complaint Ex.P/6 or in his statement recorded before the Court. The trial court has also observed that there is possibility that she had given her statement before the court after having being tutored. 11. The trial court has also observed that there is possibility that she had given her statement before the court after having being tutored. 11. After carefully going through the testimony of PW-17 Girja and looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in not placing reliance upon the testimony of PW 17 Girja. 12. So far as circumstantial evidence against the accused-respondent regarding recovery of dead bodies, axe, spade and blood stained cloths at the instance of the accused-respondent are concerned, after going through the record, we have found that the police had reached the spot in the evening of 18.6.1994 immediately arrested the accused-respondent at 7:45 PM and thereafter at 8:00 PM recorded her information regarding the place where the dead bodies were buried by her. However, the dead bodies were recovered only in the morning of 19.6.1994. The information regarding the axe is recorded as Ex.P/22 but strangely the date on the said document is mentioned as 19.4.1994 and the same date is mentioned after signature of the S.H.O. Even if it is presumed that the information regarding axe is recorded on 19.6.1994 and same was recovered only on 20.6.1994. Another information regarding spade was recorded on 19.6.1994, but the same was also recovered on 20.6.1994. It is also noticed that information regarding the blood stained cloths was given by the accused-respondent under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 20.6.1994 and the said cloths were recovered by the police on the same day. It is strange that when the accused-respondent had already given information regarding the dead bodies on 18.6.1994 at 8:00 PM, how she had not given information about axe, spade and blood stained cloths on the same day. The trial court has found that as per the statement of PW 16, the Investigating Officer, Prabhu Singh, the police was in the knowledge of the place where the dead bodies were buried when they visited the site of incident in the evening on 18.6.1994. The said witness also admitted in his statement that no time is mentioned on the Fards related to recovery of dead bodies, axe, spade and other articles. 13. The said witness also admitted in his statement that no time is mentioned on the Fards related to recovery of dead bodies, axe, spade and other articles. 13. The trial court was of the view that as per the statement of PW-7 Khiya Ram, the place where the dead bodies were allegedly buried by the accused-respondent was known to the police prior to giving of her information vide Ex.P/18. The trial court has noticed that PW-7 Khiya Ram in his complaint Ex.P/6 has also mentioned that the dead bodies of Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal were buried by the accused-respondent in the back of the house. The trial court was of the view that when the police and other witnesses were aware about the place where the dead bodies were buried, the information under Section 27 of Evidence Act recorded by the police, at the instance of the accused-respondent, regarding the dead bodies and recovery in pursuance of that, is doubtful. The trial court has also taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the recovery of axe, spade and blood stained cloths. It has observed that the axe and spade were lying in open place i.e. in the courtyard and as per the statement of PW 7 Girja also the accused respondent Tijo had placed the axe and spade after washing it in the courtyard itself, however, the police had recovered the same on 20.6.1994 from Dhani beneath the grass. We also found that when the police had recovered the dead bodies at the instance of accused-respondent on 19.6.1994 in the morning, but the information regarding axe, spade and blood stained clothes was given by her in the evening of 19.6.1994 and morning of 20.6.1994. It is not believable that the accused-respondent had given information regarding the axe and spade on 19.6.1994 in the evening and regarding the blood stained cloths in the morning of 20.6.1994 when she already revealed about the place where dead bodies were buried in the evening of 18.6.1994. 14. After perusing the evidence regarding recovery of axe, spade and blood stained cloths, we have found that the same are not believable and, therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the said part of the evidence for the purpose of connecting the accused-respondent with the crime. 15. 14. After perusing the evidence regarding recovery of axe, spade and blood stained cloths, we have found that the same are not believable and, therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the said part of the evidence for the purpose of connecting the accused-respondent with the crime. 15. So far as the extra-judicial confession is concerned, it is noticed that PW-1 Ram Lal, PW-2 Chuna Ram, PW-3 Lakha Ram, PW-6 Soni and PW-7 Khiya Ram have stated that the women present there were seeking information from the accused-respondent regarding Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal whereas Smt. Soni and Khiya Ram have stated that the men present there were seeking information from the accused-respondent. It is noticed that PW-7 Khiya Ram, PW-1 Ram Lal and other witnesses of the extra-judicial confession have specifically stated in their statements that for about two hours accused-respondent did not give any information regarding Basanti Devi and Bhajan Lal, but later on after about two hours, she started crying that she has killed Basanti and Bhajan Lal. From the said piece of evidence, it is clear that initially the accused-respondent did not confess about the crime, but when the above named witnesses insisted her for about two hours, she confessed about crime. 16. In the above noted circumstances, it cannot be concluded that she confessed about the crime voluntarily in front of the above witnesses, therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in not relying upon the evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession of the accused-respondent. The trial court has also found that there is a delay in filing the FIR and after going through the evidence available on record, we have also found that the delay in filing the FIR has not been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution.In the above noted circumstances, we are of the opinion that the State has failed to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******