Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2583 (ALL)

SURESH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-08-25

NAHEED ARA MOONIS, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1082 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 113 of 1982 arising out of case Crime No. 25, under Section 302 I.P.C., police station Najibabad, district Bijnor whereby the appellant Suresh has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for life imprisonment. In the instant case the co-accused Jitendra, whose trial was consolidated with the learned trial of the present appellant, had been given benefit of doubt and was acquitted by the trial Judge in S.T. No. 219 of 1982 and the appellant alone has been convicted as stated above. 2. The prosecution case as has been unfurled is that a First Information Report was lodged by Hukum Chand on 26.1.1982 at 9.20 a.m. in respect of an occurrence took place after 10.30 p.m. in the intervening night of 25/26.1.1982 against the appellant Suresh and three unknown persons. It is narrated in the First Information Report that the complainant had kept Bimla since last four years who had two sons and two daughters from her previous marriage. He has no issue with Bimla. He is doing labour work and Bimla used to clean utensils at several houses. The appellant, who was working since last one year in the factory of Lahoti and was residing on rent in the house of one Ganga Prasad Khanna of Mohalla Nawabpura used to visit his house. His wife Bimla who was a lady of loose character developed illicit relation with the appellant and used to visit latter’s place and Suresh also used to come to his house. The wife of the appellant had committed suicide by taking some poisonous substance one month prior to the incident. Since then the appellant has left his six month old child to his house under the care of his wife Bimla and daughter Sudha. The appellant wanted to keep Sudha with him. One day earlier to the incident at about 5 p.m. Bimla and her daughter went to the house of the appellant. Sudha came from his house and disclosed that Bimla has stayed back with the appellant and she will go to Meerut alongwith appellant for setting her marriage (Teeka). The appellant wanted to keep Sudha with him. One day earlier to the incident at about 5 p.m. Bimla and her daughter went to the house of the appellant. Sudha came from his house and disclosed that Bimla has stayed back with the appellant and she will go to Meerut alongwith appellant for setting her marriage (Teeka). In the morning of 26.1.1982 Ant Ram who is the neighbour of Suresh came to the complainant’s house informing him that at about 10.30 p.m. on previous night the appellant alongwith Bimla and three unknown persons returned back to his house and he had opened the door and thereafter they stayed in the room of Suresh and in the morning at about 8 a.m. he found that the room of the appellant was locked and the dead body of Bimla was lying outside the house. The appellant as well as other accused persons were found missing and when the complainant reached there he found that the dead body of Bimla was lying outside the house of the appellant Suresh. His wife has been murdered by Suresh and his own men. On the basis of the aforesaid information a First Information Report was registered as stated above under Section 302 I.P.C. as case Crime No. 25 of 1982 at police station Najibabad, district Bijnor (Exhibit Ka. 1) and also entered in the general diary (Exhibit Ka. 3). The criminal law was set in motion. The investigating officer went to the place of occurrence where the dead body was found. The investigating officer prepared the inquest report diagram and Chalan of the dead body and letter to the Chief Medical Officer for post-mortem, which were proved as Exhibit Ka. 4, Ka. 7 and Ka. 8 respectively. The corpse was sealed and was handed over to constable Faqir Chand and Shiv Kumar who carried the dead body to the mortuary for conducting autopsy. 3. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant, Ant Ram, Prabhu Dayal, Nikka Singh and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The recovery memo was prepared in respect of two electric bulbs Exhibit Ka. 9, which were found in running condition outside the room of the appellant and Ant Ram. 3. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant, Ant Ram, Prabhu Dayal, Nikka Singh and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The recovery memo was prepared in respect of two electric bulbs Exhibit Ka. 9, which were found in running condition outside the room of the appellant and Ant Ram. The Investigating officer after breaking the lock of the room of the appellant found two half size wine bottle Exhibit 1, 2, one saree, two terracotta cups (Kulhar) Exhibit 5, 6 having curd like substance and two glasses Exhibit 3, 4 from which smell of alcohol was coming, which were taken on the spot and prepared the recovery memo and were sealed. One cot, one quilt and some other articles were lying scattered. The appellant’s statement was recorded on 29.1.1982 who had surrendered in Court while the co-accused Jitendra surrendered on 5.4.1982. The identification of the co-accused Jitendra was conducted in the presence of S.D.M., Najibabad Chandra Prakash Mishra and identification memo was prepared, which was proved by him. The co-accused Jitendra was correctly identified by Ant Ram and Prabhu Dayal. After completing investigation by collecting clinching material the Investigating Officer placed the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant and the co-accused Jitendra for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. After the charge-sheet was submitted the competent Court committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. The charges were framed under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor on 4.6.1982, which were read over and explained to the appellant as well as to the co-accused Jitendra who however denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant examined as many as seven witnesses. The principle witnesses of facts are P. W. 1 Hukum Chand the first informant, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 Ant Ram and his son Prabhu Dayal respectively who had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant and P. W. 5 Nikka Singh who is the neighbour of the first informant. The formal witnesses are P. W. 3 Dr. S.K. Agarwal who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased and had proved the post-mortem report Exhibit Ka. 2. P. W. 6 Brahm Singh who was the Investigating Officer of the case and lastly Mr. The formal witnesses are P. W. 3 Dr. S.K. Agarwal who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased and had proved the post-mortem report Exhibit Ka. 2. P. W. 6 Brahm Singh who was the Investigating Officer of the case and lastly Mr. C. P. Mishra, S.D.M. was examined as P. W. 7 who had conducted the identification of co-accused Jitendra and prepared memo of test identification which was proved by him as Exhibit Ka. 13. The documents, which were tendered in evidence by the prosecution have been proved before the Court. The material exhibits are being summarized here under; 1. Exhibit Ka. 1 First Information Report, 2. Exhibit Ka. 4. Inquest report, 3. Exhibit Ka. 2. Post-mortem report, 4. Exhibit Ka. 6. Chalan of dead body, 5. Exhibit Ka. 7. Letter of the Chief Medical Officer for post-mortem, 6. Exhibit Ka. 8. Site plan, 7. Exhibit Ka. 9. Recovery of bulbs, 8. Exhibit Ka. 10. Glass, bottle, terracotta cup (Kulhar) and saree, 9. Exhibit Ka. 13. Identification memo. 10. Exhibit Ka. 16. Affidavit of Head Constable Ram Phool Singh. 5. The post-mortem report prepared and proved by Dr. S.K. Agarwal, P.W. 3 exhibited as Ka. 2 shows that it was conducted on 27.1.1982 at 2 p.m. after about one and half day since death and following anti mortem injuries were found on the person of the dead body. Rounded (complete) ligature mark around the neck below the level of hyoid bone. Base of ligature mark pale and dry. 6. On dissection of ligature mark blood and ecchymosis in subcutaneous tissues cornu of thyroid cartilage fractured and rings of trachea fractured. Abrasion 2 cm. X 1 cm. on right sight of neck just above ligature mark. On internal examination brain was congested, mucous membranes of trachea and both lungs were found congested, digested food material in liquid form in stomach was found, no alcoholic substance was found and in the opinion of the Doctor injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death. Death could have occurred in the intervening night of 25/26 January, 1982 at about 4 a.m. Cause of death was due to shock and asphyxia due to strangulation. 7. The accused/appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He also denied that his wife died on account of consuming poison and has stated that she died on account of ailment. 7. The accused/appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He also denied that his wife died on account of consuming poison and has stated that she died on account of ailment. He was not living in his room and when he was living in the room there was no electricity. The alleged motive to commit murder of Bimla was totally baseless. He has left the room after his wife’s death. The police planted articles to create evidence against him that he was residing in the room on the date of alleged incident. Relation with Prabhu Dayal and Ant Ram were not cordial as there was dispute with regard to flow of water and they have falsely implicated him in the present case on account of nurturing grudge. 8. On the appraisal of the evidence on record as stated above the learned trial judge came to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt against the accused/appellant Suresh and accordingly convicted him while giving benefit of doubt to the co-accused Jitendra. The present appeal has been preferred by Suresh assailing his conviction and sentence. 9. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae Sri Javed Habib for the appellant and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and have been taken through the record. 10. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the case of the prosecution entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence and in order to sustain conviction the evidence must be established beyond reasonable doubt consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In the present case the chain of events are incomplete in material particulars and the basis of his conviction is only the last seen evidence of the two witnesses Ant Ram P.W. 2 and Prabhu Dayal P.W. 4 who are not at all trustworthy to place any reliance. The motive attributed to the appellant to commit the offence is also fully based on suspicion and smacks of foul smell. The deceased was a lady of easy virtue, which is evident from the First Information Report itself that she had illicit connections with various persons and therefore she might have eliminated by some one and the appellant has been roped in the present case who is absolutely an innocent person. The deceased was a lady of easy virtue, which is evident from the First Information Report itself that she had illicit connections with various persons and therefore she might have eliminated by some one and the appellant has been roped in the present case who is absolutely an innocent person. It has further been contended that as per the prosecution case when the appellant had given his own child to be looked after to Bimla and her daughter then there was no occasion for the appellant to commit her murder. 11. According to the prosecution case Sudha who is alleged to have gone alongwith her mother to the appellant’s house and thereafter she alone returned back and disclosed to the complainant that her mother went to Meerut for her Teeka and that the appellant wanted to keep Sudha cannot be relied upon in the absence of examination of Sudha before the Court who could be the best witness on behalf of the prosecution. During investigation it has come that the house hold articles were found in the room but while preparing the site plan, it has been mentioned that the house hold articles were lying scattered but the investigating officer has not mentioned in the site plan as to what were those items lying inside the room of the appellant, which had only been later described while preparing case diary. The investigating officer has recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and recovered certain things, which really do not render any assistance to the prosecution. It is further contended that the incident is of a cold night of 25th of January and it was raining as per the prosecution case while the P.W. 2 and 4 Ant Ram and his son Prabhu Dayal who are ‘Thathera’ were working at that time which is highly improbable. They have been made witnesses of last seen to somehow corroborate the prosecution case as mentioned in the First Information Report. They have been made witnesses of last seen to somehow corroborate the prosecution case as mentioned in the First Information Report. They have stated that when Suresh gave a call at the main entrance of the Courtyard, in which one of the room was of the appellant, they both went to open the door bolted from inside and when it was opened they found that the appellant Suresh, deceased Bimla and three other persons entered and went inside the room and thereafter the appellant shut the door of his room and when enquired by the two witnesses the appellant asked them not to bolt the main gate. The real fact is that there was no latch on the main door which has not been shown in the site plan. The P.W. 2 and P. W. 4 Ant Ram and his son Prabhu Dayal have been made witness of last seen purposely in order to complete the chain of the circumstantial evidence. The appellant has no motive to commit murder of the deceased Bimla as according to the own prosecution version when she had illicit relation with the appellant then there was no reason that the appellant will commit her murder and put the dead body out side his own house. Nikka Singh is the neighbour of the complainant was examined as P.W. 5 who had deposed that when there was some altercation between Suresh and the deceased who were abusing each other he (P. W. 5 Nikka Singh) went to pacify but the deceased Bimla had herself stated that it was their own affair and he should not intervene in the matter. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae has further argued that the appellant had already left the room after the death of his wife. The relation of the appellant was not cordial with P. W. 2 and P. W. 4 on account of flow of water and this was the cause that they have falsely implicated him in the present case. It is further contended that as per the prosecution case that the deceased remained with the appellant as disclosed by her daughter to the complainant as she had to go for settling her marriage to Meerut, then the appellant could have ample opportunity to commit murder at any place instead of bringing her back on the fateful night and then commit her murder and left the body at nearby place. On account of illicit relation of the deceased with several persons she could have been done to death by any one and was left near the place where the appellant was residing. The investigating officer has collected half bottle of liquor. It has come in the prosecution evidence that the deceased used to smoke bidi and cigarette and consumed liquor. On the fateful day the appellant and other persons had also consumed liquor for which the investigating officer had shown recovery of liquor bottle, terracotta cup (Kulhar) and glass from the room but the post-mortem report is absolutely silent that any smell of liquor was found from the person of the deceased. Several persons were residing within the Courtyard of Ganga Prasad Khanna and no one had heard about any shriek or noise if 3-4 persons were trying to commit murder of a lady. According to the post-mortem report death was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation, the non-recovery of object also weakens the prosecution case. It is rather strange that no external marks were on the body, which could demonstrate that there had been a struggle. 13. It has further been argued by the learned Amicus Curiae that according to the site plan there is a lane towards the south of the house of Ganga Prasad Khanna then there would be a door in the lane towards southern side of the house and the appellant who had planned to commit murder could have come from the lane shown on the southern side, therefore, the arrival of the appellant and other persons alongwith the deceased from the main door creates doubt about the presence of P. W. 2 and P.W. 4 as a witness of last seen. It is further argued that the First Information Report was lodged at 9.20 a.m. when the distance from the place of occurrence to the police station was hardly one furlong. The Investigating Officer reached only thereafter at the open place where the dead body was lying. It is highly doubtful that the co-accused Jitendra who is said to have been identified by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 could have hardly recognised him as there was no supply of electricity in the night of 25.1.1982. The Investigating Officer reached only thereafter at the open place where the dead body was lying. It is highly doubtful that the co-accused Jitendra who is said to have been identified by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 could have hardly recognised him as there was no supply of electricity in the night of 25.1.1982. This fact has been specifically stated by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has failed to produce any record that there was supply of electricity on the fateful night, therefore, the identification of the co-accused Jitendra is surrounded with suspicion who has rightly been acquitted by the learned trial judge giving benefit of doubt. 14. It has further been contended that there are various infirmities committed by the Investigating Officer while conducting investigation, like delay in examination of the witnesses, delay in removing the dead body from the place of occurrence, failing to make mention in the general diary with regard to preparation of inquest report, which creates serious doubt about the probity of the prosecution case and manner in which the incident could have taken place. The learned trial judge has committed patent error in discarding inconsistency in the statement of witnesses viz-a-viz time, manner and place of incident coupled with motive hence the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 15. The learned A.G.A. controverted the arguments advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae with vehemence and contended that this is a case of direct evidence against the appellant as the evidence of prosecution witnesses is natural conforming to the time, place and date of incident. The appellant is named in the First Information Report. The deceased was known to the appellant who was in visiting terms with him and at the same time the appellant also wanted to marry Sudha one of the daughter of the deceased. The daughter of the deceased has no liking with the appellant who had gone alongwith her mother to the appellant’s room and left her mother alone with him who is said to have stated to the complainant that her mother is going alongwith the appellant to Meerut to settle her marriage. The daughter of the deceased has no liking with the appellant who had gone alongwith her mother to the appellant’s room and left her mother alone with him who is said to have stated to the complainant that her mother is going alongwith the appellant to Meerut to settle her marriage. This shows that the appellant had won her confidence that he (the the appellant) would go to Meerut to perform her (Sudha’s) Teeka ceremony but the real fact was that the appellant wanted to eliminate Bimla so that he could perform marriage with her daughter but when the plan could not be materialized he came back alongwith the deceased and 2-3 persons in the night of 25/26.1.1982 and when the appellant asked to open the door it was opened by the P.W. 2 Ant Ram and P.W. 4 Prabhu Dayal who had seen that the deceased was accompanying with the appellant and three other persons. They had arrived in the night and the P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 who were also residing within the same Courtyard where the appellant was residing absolutely known to him who were the natural persons to open the door on the call of the appellant at 9.30 p.m. They have specifically stated that the appellant had entered his house alongwith Bimla and three other persons and when he was asked about the latch of the main gate be put on then he said that it would be closed by him when other persons would go away. After entering into his room the room was bolted from inside by the appellant and thereafter in the morning on 26.1.1982 at 7.30 a.m. when Ant Ram P. W. 2 had gone to attend nature’s call he found that the main door was opened and the dead body of the deceased Bimla lying in an open place, thus there was close proximity of time when the two witnesses P.W. 2 and P. W. 4 had seen the deceased in the company of the appellant and the dead body found by the P. W. 2. 16. 16. It has further been contended by the learned A.G.A. that there is no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellant rather the conduct of the appellant giving evasive denial with respect to the incriminating circumstance and also setting up false defence while recording her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is an additional link in the chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the crime. It has come in the evidence that the appellant wanted to marry with the daughter of the deceased, which had aroused anger to the deceased who had already developed illicit relation with the appellant and when it was objected by her the appellant had planned to eliminate her on the pretext that she will be taken for settling marriage of her daughter to Meerut and the defence has made every attempt to discredit the testimony of the last seen witnesses in their cross-examination but their testimony could not be shaken by the appellant. 17. The learned A.G.A. has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2013 (7) SCC 45 , wherein it has been specifically held that where all the incriminating circumstances, which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to him, yet he choses not to give any explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. In the present case also the appellant had made bald denial and had offered no explanation whatsoever with regard to the relationship, thus the circumstance goes against him. It has also been held in the aforesaid case that where the time gap between the deceased was last seen in company of the appellant and the time of death was not long, there is no reason to discredit the theory of last seen, which has rightly been accepted by the trial judge against the appellant. 18. It has also been held in the aforesaid case that where the time gap between the deceased was last seen in company of the appellant and the time of death was not long, there is no reason to discredit the theory of last seen, which has rightly been accepted by the trial judge against the appellant. 18. It is further contended by the learned A.G.A. that in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013 (14) SCC 434 , it has been held that in cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased just before the incident it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred and if the accused does not offer any explanation then it would be a strong circumstance that the appellant alone is responsible for the commission of the crime. In the present case the evidence of the last seen could not be shaken by the defence in cross-examination the burden lies upon the accused to explain how the incident had occurred and for the sake of repetition failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation give rise to a strong presumption against him. 19. The learned A.G.A. has further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, 2006 (12) SCC 254 , wherein it has been held that where the accused has failed to give satisfactory explanation with regard to incriminating circumstance, which was within his special knowledge amounts to failure to discharge the onus, which lies on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and as a corollary it provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. 20. On the bedrock of the aforesaid pronouncement of law the submission advanced by the learned A.G.A. is that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and the circumstances in ex tenso. 20. On the bedrock of the aforesaid pronouncement of law the submission advanced by the learned A.G.A. is that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and the circumstances in ex tenso. The last seen evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 fully corroborates that the appellant was in the company of the deceased in the night and on the next morning no one was found and the door was locked and the dead body was lying outside the Courtyard, therefore, the appellant should have explained the circumstances as to when the deceased parted from him or ought to have offered some plausible explanation exculpating him in support of his innocence. There is no embellishment in the prosecution case. The post-mortem report corroborates the manner of assault committed by the appellant in association with other persons. On material particulars the prosecution witnesses have not been cross-examined by the defence of which now the appellant cannot take the benefit. The co-accused Jitendra has been acquitted on the ground of technicalities in conducting identification proceeding against him. As far as the appellant is concerned all the circumstances lead towards his guilt and cannot derive any benefit on account of acquittal of the co-accused. Minor aberration in the prosecution version will not over shadow the prosecution case. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below in convicting the appellant. 21. In the light of the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges out that in the instant case the circumstances that have been established by the prosecution are that the first informant while lodging the First Information Report had specifically mentioned that the appellant had illicit relation with Bimla as the latter used to go at his house and the appellant also used to come to visit her. The appellant at the same time also wanted to keep Sudha, the daughter of the deceased, and Sudha has disclosed to the complainant about that her mother has stayed back with the appellant as she would go to Meerut to settle her marriage alongwith appellant and on the next day the neighbour of the appellant Ant Ram (P.W. 2) came to the house of the complainant stating that at 10.30 p.m. the appellant alongwith three other persons with the deceased Bimla came and he had opened the door and the appellant alongwith Bimla and other persons went to his room and in the morning at about 7.30 a.m. he found the door of the appellant was locked and the dead body of Bimla was lying outside the house and the appellant as well as his associates were not found there. This fact has been reiterated by the complainant P. W. 1in his deposition recorded before the Court. P.W. 2 and P. W. 4 who were examined as witnesses of last seen had clearly revealed that they had seen the appellant in the night alongwith the deceased and on the next day in the morning he (P.W. 2) found not only the dead body lying outside the house but also the appellant and his associates were missing and his room was locked. From the evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 4 two facts are established that the appellant and the deceased were known to the prosecution witnesses P. W. 2 and P.W. 4 Ant Ram and Prabhu Dayal and they had seen them together in the night at 10.30 p.m. as the door was opened by them on the call of the appellant. 22. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the last seen theory as advanced by the prosecution is not acceptable in as much as the daughter of the deceased has not been examined to prove as to whether the deceased stayed back with the appellant as alleged in the First Information Report. When the testimony of P.W. 2 and P. W. 4 receive corroboration from other evidence on record, no adverse inference can be drawn because of non-examination of daughter of the deceased who according to the learned Amicus Curiae was a material witness. When the testimony of P.W. 2 and P. W. 4 receive corroboration from other evidence on record, no adverse inference can be drawn because of non-examination of daughter of the deceased who according to the learned Amicus Curiae was a material witness. Plurality of evidence is not at all required for bringing home the guilt and it is the quality of the witnesses which is significant in appraisal of evidence. Her statement was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after 8-9 days who has supported the prosecution case. therefore merely non-examination of Sudha the daughter of the deceased before the Court, the entire testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded as untrustworthy and unconvincing and would not destroy the fabric of the prosecution case. At this juncture the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of the accused/appellant who had totally denied to have accompanied with the deceased whereas the cumulative reading and apposite appreciation of the evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 4 have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The appellant had made only bald denial of the incriminating circumstances put to him and had no explanation to offer how the deceased received injuries. 23. The argument advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae is that in order to create evidence of last seen by getting the witnesses opened the door looses their trustworthiness when a lane has been shown by the Investigating Officer towards the south of the house of Ganga Prasad Khanna in which the appellant was tenant. The Investigating Officer was asked about the presence of any door in the said lane who has stated that he has not shown the entire lane in the site plan and it may be that it has a door some where beyond the position in the site plan. P. W. 4 Prabhu Dayal has also stated about that there is a door in this lane and at times used to go to market. This would not make the entire prosecution story doubtful that the appellant did not arrive through the main gate as stated by Ant Ram and Prabhu Dayal to doubt about thus their presence. 24. P. W. 4 Prabhu Dayal has also stated about that there is a door in this lane and at times used to go to market. This would not make the entire prosecution story doubtful that the appellant did not arrive through the main gate as stated by Ant Ram and Prabhu Dayal to doubt about thus their presence. 24. It has also been pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae that the dead body of the deceased was found at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning and no First Information Report was lodged promptly when the distance of the police station was hardly 50 yards. The P.W. 2 was the first person who had seen the dead body so his first action was to inform his landlord, the landlord never mentioned that the room occupied by Suresh was left and lying vacant, which shows that the room was in occupation of the appellant who left the place by putting lock. The P. W. 2 Ant Ram after informing to the landlord went to the house of the complainant at 8.30 a.m. that the dead body of his wife Bimla was lying outside the house of Ganga Prasad Khanna. Therefore, the complainant arrived at the place of occurrence and had seen the dead body of Bimla and then he proceeded to the police station to lodge the First Information Report, which was lodged at 9.20 a.m. at police station Najibabad. Thus it cannot be said that the First Information Report is the result of due deliberation and consultation. The Investigating officer while preparing the site plan has also made an inspection memo who had unlock the room of the appellant and found that the valuables from the room had been removed and the liquor bottle and glasses were found which shows that there were more than one person in the room and various articles were found lying scattered. This fully corroborates the eye-witness account of the last seen witness who had seen the appellant alongwith other persons arrived at 10.30 p.m. in the night and thus their presence cannot be doubted by merely saying that the witnesses were cooked up by the prosecution. This fully corroborates the eye-witness account of the last seen witness who had seen the appellant alongwith other persons arrived at 10.30 p.m. in the night and thus their presence cannot be doubted by merely saying that the witnesses were cooked up by the prosecution. An attempt has also been made that the main door was never locked as there was no bolt (Kunda) from inside whereas in the deposition of the last seen witnesses it has specifically been mentioned that when the appellant alongwith other accused persons and the deceased came inside the main gate he was asked as to whether the gate be locked or not then the appellant had asked them that when his men will go away he would himself bolt the main gate and thereafter in the morning the gate was found opened. The investigating officer has admitted that latch was found on the main gate which was not mentioned and shown in the site plan. 25. The case in hand based on circumstantial evidence where motive has assumed great significance as it has come in the evidence that the appellant was trying to keep the daughter of the deceased with him, which was not accepted by the deceased and it has been established that when the deceased refused to accept the proposal of the appellant it had aroused his anger as she betrayed him and on account of which he made a pretext before the daughter of the deceased that he is going with her mother for settling her marriage to Meerut. He accompanied with 2-3 persons including Jitendra but he could not found any suitable opportunity to eliminate her, he had to return back alongwith all the three persons and then in the night the appellant killed her by strangulation and threw her dead body and thereafter he disappeared from the place. The appellant has falsely stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had left the room soon after the death of his wife when the two last seen witnesses had seen him lastly on the fateful night and the investigating officer had also found various items in the room of the appellant. If he would have left the room after his wife’s death room should have been empty but no plausible explanation put forth by him. 26. If he would have left the room after his wife’s death room should have been empty but no plausible explanation put forth by him. 26. There is no reason to doubt about the post-mortem report, which has been fully corroborated from the deposition of Doctor S. K. Agarwal, P.W. 3 who had conducted post-mortem of the deceased whose hyoid bone was found fractured, trachea was found fractured. In his opinion she died due to asphyxia on account of strangulation. The P. W. 3 has clearly stated that death could have occurred at about 4 a.m. in the night between 25 and 26 January, 1982. The time of murder as stated by the Doctor is fully corroborated with the prosecution case. The hyoid bone is not susceptible to easy fracture and in the present case fractured hyoid bone strongly indicates throttling or strangulation as cornu of thyroid cartilage and rings of trachea were found broken. Mucous membrance of trachea was also congested. Thus the possibility that she would have committed suicide has been ruled out completely by the Doctor. The P.W. 2 had found that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the heap of bricks. The appellant with his associates has committed gruesome murder in his room and thereafter shifted the dead body in the close vicinity. The investigating officer has clearly stated that where the dead body of Bimla was found there was no blood to show that she was killed at that place rather on inspection of the room of the appellant three things were certain that there was some scuffle in the room, more than one persons consumed liquor in the room and all valuables had been removed, this corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 P. W. 3 who and had seen three unknown persons alongwith the appellant and the deceased when they opened the door. Merely because the complainant had stated that the deceased had illicit relation with several persons and was out of his control, therefore, it cannot be presumed that she would have been murdered by some unknown persons there is no material to substantiate or that she would have committed suicide as the appellant wanted to marry with her daughter. Merely because the complainant had stated that the deceased had illicit relation with several persons and was out of his control, therefore, it cannot be presumed that she would have been murdered by some unknown persons there is no material to substantiate or that she would have committed suicide as the appellant wanted to marry with her daughter. The appellant could not marry the deceased because of difference of age and after his wife’s death he proposed to marry deceased’s daughter, which was not accepted by her and has enraged the appellant and in a planned manner committed her murder. 27. 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 out is the possible mental element which could have been the cause for the murder. In this connection we deem it useful to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, 1999 (38) ACC 550 (SC). “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 if 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.” 28. It is a difficult area for the prosecution as one cannot see into the mind of another. Therefore, the statements of the two witnesses Ant Ram (P.W.2) and Prabhu Dayal (P.W.4) are trustworthy and reliable as a connecting link of evidence which cannot be disbelieved under the circumstance of the case. 29. It is well-settled law when even otherwise the case rests on circumstantial evidence the Court has to be satisfied with the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn. 29. It is well-settled law when even otherwise the case rests on circumstantial evidence the Court has to be satisfied with the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn. Such circumstances should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and non else. The said evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case from the analysis of the evidence it emerges out that all the link in the chain of event is established clearly and completely and the evidence of last seen cannot be discarded as the motive attributed to the appellant strengthens the case of the prosecution. Every minor variation or inconsistency would not tilt balance of justice in favour of the accused. 30. As the factual matrix would show maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ has no application in the present case, which is not applicable in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liares all that it amount to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. 30. As the factual matrix would show maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ has no application in the present case, which is not applicable in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liares all that it amount to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. There is no actual eye-witness yet the circumstances as can be culled out from the appreciation of evidence on record against the appellant are; (i) From the fateful night 25/26.1.1982 till the morning of 26.1.1982 when the incident is alleged to have taken place inside the room of the appellant who was seen with the deceased by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 in such circumstances the appellant had all the opportunity to commit the offence; (ii) The appellant had no plausible explanation to offer as to the injuries on the deceased and the death of the deceased who had visiting terms with him; (iii) The intimacy developed with the deceased’s daughter Sudha and a love triangle was formed and prompted by this motive the appellant eliminated Bimla on the fateful night; (iv) Medical evidence supports the prosecution version that the death was homicidal and the deceased was strangulated to death; (v) The appellant has failed to discharge the burden, which has shifted upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act adverse inference is needed to be drawn against him where there is evasive denial with regard to the circumstances, which were in his special knowledge and when the circumstances were put to the appellant the denial thereof relating to circumstances, namely, his disappearance, locking of his room and his failure to offer a satisfactory explanation in defence and formed silence is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Thus the prosecution has successfully proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 31. In view of the aforesaid verbose and prolix discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no scope for any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. The appeal preferred by the appellant is totally devoid of merit. No interference is warranted with the judgment passed by the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence as awarded by the Court below. The appeal preferred by the appellant is totally devoid of merit. No interference is warranted with the judgment passed by the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence as awarded by the Court below. The office is directed to send back the record to the trial Court. 32. Before we part with the case we record our appreciation for the sustained endeavour and able assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. 33. The State is directed to pay honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Javed Habib, Advocate. 34. Judgement certified and be placed on record.