JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. In this cr. appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the accused appellant Dungar Ram is challenging the judgment dated 25.7.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 2/2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali whereby accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and passed the following sentence against him: "Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment of life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI Under Section 201 IPC two years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months RI." 2. According to the prosecution case, the accused appellant Dungar Ram himself submitted a written report (Ex. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI Under Section 201 IPC two years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months RI." 2. According to the prosecution case, the accused appellant Dungar Ram himself submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) in his hand writing before SHO Police Station, Industrial Area, Pali in which following averments were made by him, which reads as under: ^^lsok es] Jheku Fkkuk/;{k egksn;] Fkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks= ikyh] fuosnu fd eSa Mqaxjjke iq= Jh :ikjke tkV fuoklh ukikokl iksLV jktksyk dyk] rglhy&lkstr flVh] ftyk&ikyh dk fuoklh gwqA eS fnukad 10-10-2006 ls 25-11-2006 rd 47 fnu dh NqV~Vh vk;k FkkA esjs ?kj ij firkth&ekrkth] iRuh izse o iq= lquhy] vfuy jgrs gSA eSa viuh iRuh dks ?kVUkk okys fnu vkt ikyh ysdj vk jgk Fkk D;ksafd esjh iRuh eq>s ckj&ckj vius ihgj tkus ds fy, dgrh Fkh eSaus mls ckj&ckj euk Hkh fd;k fd FkksM+s fnu igys gh rks vkbZ gksA FkksM+s fnu ;gak ls vyx gks x, exj mlds ckn esjh iRuh us dgk fd vki okfil viuh M~;wVh ij tkus ds ckn rks ihgj tkaÅxh ghA mlds ckn rksa eSusa mls dqN dguk mfpr ugha le>k D;ksafd esjh ckr mldh le> esa ugha vkbZ ?kVuk okys fnu ls ,d fnu igys eSus viuk Iyku cuk;k fd D;ksa u iRuh o cPpks dks ges'kk ds fy, Hkxoku ds ikl gh Hkst nw ftlls ;g ihgj llqjky okyk fdLlk gh [kRe gks tk,xk rFkk ?kVuk okys fnu eSus Iyku ds eqrkfcd viuh o cPpksa dks ysdj iSny jokuk gqvkA ?kj ls jokuk gksus ls igys eSusa viuh ekrkth dks crk;k fd eSa ikyh tk jgk gwa vius cPpks o iRuh dks ysdjA esjk la;qDr [kkrk [kqyokuk gS ge okfil ,d&nks fnu esa vk tk,xsaA ge lHkh ?kj ls 'kke ds le; 4 cts ds yxHkx jokuk gq,A tgka ij cl esa cSBrs gS ;g txg esjs xkao ls yxHkx nks fdeh] nwj gSA ;g txg xkao /kqjkluh rFkk xkao iksVfy;k ds chp esa feyrk gS bl txg ij cl yxHkx 'kke 5-30 cts vkrh gSA blfy, eS viuh iRuh cPpks dks ysdj /khjs&/khj /kj ls pykA ?kVuk okyh txg ls 300&400 ehVj igys eSusa lHkh dks ,d vaxzsth ccwy dh Nk;k esa FkksM+h nssj cSBk;k D;ksfd eq>s nsj djds vius dke dks vatke nsuk Fkk eSusa ogka cM+s cPps dks 3&4 pkdysV f[kykbZ ftlls FkksM+k le; yxk ml le; 'kke ds 4%45 cts Fks mlds ckn eSusa [kM+s gksdj b/kj&m/kj ns[kk fd dksbZ gS rks ughA fQj ogka ls [kM+s lHkh fQj pyus yxs rFkk ?kVuk okyh txg eSusa Bhd le>h rFkk ogka ij iRuh o cPpks dks pkdysV f[kykbZ rFkk [kM+s gksdj pkSdl fuxkgksa ls b/kj&m/kj ns[kk eq>s dksbZ utj ugha vk;k rks eSusa ;gh txg vPNh le>h rFkk vius cSx ls Vkoy ckgj fudkyk rFkk cgkuk cukrs gq, tgka esjh iRuh cSBh gqbZ Fkh eSa mlds ihNs dh rjQ pyk x;k rFkk pan lSd.M lkspus ds ckn eSusa Vkoy ls ihNs ls mldh xnZu esa Mky fn;k rFkk Qnak dh rjQ etcwr idM+ dj dl fn;k dkQh mBk&iVd ds ckn esjh iRuh ejh mlds ckn mldh yk'k dks ?klhVrs gq, >kfM+;ks dh chp ys x;kA mlds ckn NksVs okys cPps dks ekjk RkFkk fQj cMs okys cPps dks ekjkA mlds ckn eq>s 'kd gqvk fd iRuh vHkh rd ugh ejh gS rks b/kj m/kj ns[kus ds ckn eq>s ,d iRFkj utj vk;k eSus mldks mBkdj iRuh dh 'okluyh ij dgha tksjnkj okj fd, rc tkdj oks ejhA fQj eSus cSx esa nksuks cPpks dks Mkydj psu cUn dj nh rFkk >kM+h ds ikl j[k fn;kA tc eq>s iDdh rLkYyh gks xbZ gS fd viuk dke gks x;k rks fQj eSus ,d ckj b/kj&m/kj ns[kk fd dksbZ eq>s ns[k rks ugh jgk gSA mlds ckn ikl gh cus ,d Vkads ij x;k RkFkk MCcs ls ikuh fudkydj gkFk&eqga /kks,A fQj lM+d ij vkdj le; ns[kk rks 'kke ds 5-30 cts FksA rHkh ,d LdwVj okyk vk x;k mldks gkFk fn;k rks mlus jksdk rFkk mlds lkFk /kqjkluh vk;k fQj ogka ls nqljs LdwVj ls pUnykbZ cksV vk;kA pUnykbZ cksV ls fcYkkM+k&ikyh cl }kjk ikyh igqap x;kA ikyk igqapk ml le; 'kke ds 7%00 ct pqds FksA fQj eSus ,d 'kkWy [kjhnh rFkk pk; ihA fQj b/kj&m/kj ?kqek rFkk 'kke 8%30 cts eaFku flusek gky iagqpk fQj 9-00 cts ls 12-00 cts rd fiDpj ns[khA fiDpj NqVus ds ckn /khjs&/khjs iSny pydj Fkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks= ikyh igqpkA Mqaxjjke^^ 3. Upon the aforesaid written report submitted by the accused appellant Dungar Ram, formal FIR No. 126 was registered at Police Station Shivpura, District Pali on 26.11.2006 under Section 302 and 201 IPC against the accused appellant. 4. After registration of the FIR, police inspected the site and prepared inquest report and Panchanama of the dead bodies of Prem, wife of the accused appellant and Sunil and Anil, sons of the accused appellant vide Ex. P/8 and P/9 in the presence of two independent witnesses (motbirs). The statement of all the prosecution witnesses were recorded and post mortem of all the deceased persons were conducted by the medical board at Government Bangar Hospital, Pali and post mortem report Ex. P/29 of Smt. Prem Devi, post mortem report Ex. P/30 of Anil and post mortem repot Ex. P/31 of Sunil were given on 26.11.2006 itself by medical board. The investigating officer obtained those post mortem report for the purpose of further investigation. All the three dead bodies were handed over for cremation vide Ex. P/10 to the father of Prem Devi, Sh. Panna Ram at 5.00 pm on 6.11.2006. The ornaments of Prem Devi and Sunil (deceased), wearing by them were handed over to the father Panna Ram vide Ex. P/11 on 26.11.2006. From the place of occurrence, one brown coloured nylon bag in which dead bodies of Sunil and Anil, and cloth Anogochha which used for throttling and sleeper of Prem Devi were found, all the articles were taken in possession vide Ex. P/12. The blood stained soil and simple soil, stone, one blood stained towel, Sadi (Odhana) of deceased and other cloths Kurti, Kanchali, broken teeth and other articles like black rapper of chocolate Talreju were taken in possession from the place of occurrence in the presence of two witnesses Govind Rama and Mohan Das. The accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/25. The blood stained cloth Pent, Sandal of accused appellant were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/26. The tickets of film hall Manthan were taken in possession vide Ex. P/27 and P/28. The molds of foot were also taken from the place of occurrence vide Ex. The accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/25. The blood stained cloth Pent, Sandal of accused appellant were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/26. The tickets of film hall Manthan were taken in possession vide Ex. P/27 and P/28. The molds of foot were also taken from the place of occurrence vide Ex. P/23 and after recording statement of all prosecution witnesses, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant in the court of Civil Judge (JD)-cum Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, District Pali from where the case was committed for trial to the court of Addl. District Judge, Sojat, District Pali where trial took place. 5. In the trial, charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC were framed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused appellant, but the accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and prayed for trial. 6. During trial, the statements of 31 prosecution witnesses were recorded and number of documents were exhibited in the trial to prove the prosecution case. 7. The learned trial court after recording evidence of prosecution proceeded to record statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and gave explanation that false case has been registered against him on the basis of concocted evidence of prosecution. No evidence was produced by the accused appellant in his defence. 8. After recording evidence the learned trial court finally heard the arguments and convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC and passed the sentence above mentioned vide judgment dated 25.7.2008 in Sessions Case No. 2/2007. 9. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of the said judgment on so many grounds. 10. 8. After recording evidence the learned trial court finally heard the arguments and convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC and passed the sentence above mentioned vide judgment dated 25.7.2008 in Sessions Case No. 2/2007. 9. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of the said judgment on so many grounds. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment impugned is not in consonance with law because the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution objectively to convict the accused appellant for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC because there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence against the accused appellant, therefore in view of the judgment in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 (SC) 1622 and Manjunath Chennabasapa Mandlli v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 2090 no case is made out against the accused appellant because in above cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle for deciding the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence. 11. As per learned counsel for the appellant in above cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while appreciating the circumstantial evidence the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the fact that the chain of circumstances are complete and there is no lacuna in the prosecution case so as to arrive at with the finding of guilt. In this case all the circumstances upon which conviction can be based are not in existence, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there are major contradiction and inconsistency in all the statements of prosecution witnesses, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon such type of statements so as to hold the accused appellant guilty for offence of murder, the learned trial court committed a grave error in convicting the accused appellant for the serious offence of murder, therefore, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that it is a case in which the accused appellant himself submits written report and stated by him that he has killed his wife and two sons. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that it is a case in which the accused appellant himself submits written report and stated by him that he has killed his wife and two sons. After registration of FIR in the investigation the said story narrated by the accused appellant was found to be correct, therefore, the learned trial court after considering and appreciating oral and circumstantial evidence available on record rightly held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and passed the sentence above. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned the entire evidence. It is true that instant case is based upon written extra judicial confession by the accused appellant and circumstantial evidence, therefore, we cannot lose sight of the fact that FIR itself was registered on the basis of written complaint (Ex. P/1) submitted by the accused appellant Dungar Ram and investigation was conducted by the police in proper manner to hold accused responsible for three murders. 15. We have perused the statement of all the prosecution witnesses in which it is proved by the evidence that all the facts narrated by the accused appellant that he is army personnel and on the date of incident, he was in the house on leave are corroborated by the prosecution witness. 16. PW-1 Amrit Soni, SHO gave his statement before the court on oath that FIR was registered by him upon written report submitted by the accused appellant himself. This witness completely supported the investigation conducted by him. 17. PW-2 Shambhoo Ram supported the entire evidence of investigation being part of investigation. PW-3 Panna Ram is the father of the deceased Prem Devi categorically stated that marriage of Prem Devi was solemnized with the accused appellant Dungar Ram before 5-6 years and in marriage 10 tola gold and 1.5 kg ornament of silver were given and other articles of domestic use were also given in the marriage. The behavior of the accused appellant was so cruel with the deceased and he was repeatedly assaulting her and family members and made demand of Rs. 2 lacs and said that plot situated in Jodhpur may be given to him. The behavior of the accused appellant was so cruel with the deceased and he was repeatedly assaulting her and family members and made demand of Rs. 2 lacs and said that plot situated in Jodhpur may be given to him. The witness PW-3 Panna Ram is the witness before whom dead body of both the children were recovered and a specific allegation was levelled by him that conduct of the accused appellant was so cruel towards children and therefore, he was regularly making demand. 18. PW-4 Govind Ram is the Sarpanch of village Rajolakalan. It is stated by him that bag in which dead bodies of two children were lying on place of occurrence and dead body of lady was lying was recovered in his presence. The inquest report (Ex. P/5) was prepared in his presence upon which he put his signatures. Though he was declared hostile, but reiterated his presence at the time of investigation and preparation of Exs.P/6, P/7 and P/8. 19. PW-5 Mohan Das turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, but submitted the fact that site plan was prepared in his presence by the investigating officer. 20. Similarly PW-6 Ganesh Ram and PW-7 Kan Singh supported the entire evidence and recovery. PW-8 Bhinya Ram is witness of last seen. PW-9 Kishan Singh specifically stated that on the date of occurrence Dungar Ram came to shop at 5-5.30 pm and made query about bus going to Pali. He consumed tea upon his tea shop. 21. PW-10 Parsmal is also corroborating fact that on the date of incident accused appellant gone to bus stand. PW-11 Hardev Ram is the witness before whom the documents were taken in possession vide Ex. P/17. PW-12 Poona Ram S/o Prabhu Ram Ji is the neighbor of the accused appellant. PW-13 Narendra Kumar, PW-14 Sajjan Singh, PW-15 Chhota Ram, PW-16 Manish Sharma, PW-17 Oma Ram and PW-18 Satya Narayan Singh they all are police officials and they are supporting entire investigation. 22. PW-20 Bhagirath stated before the court that on the date of incident at about 3.00 pm he saw that accused appellant alongwith his two sons and wife were coming from village Napawas, at that time, accused appellant Dungar Ram asked him about time. 23. PW-21 Dr. G.N. Arora conducted post mortem and he supported the fact of post mortem. 24. PW-20 Bhagirath stated before the court that on the date of incident at about 3.00 pm he saw that accused appellant alongwith his two sons and wife were coming from village Napawas, at that time, accused appellant Dungar Ram asked him about time. 23. PW-21 Dr. G.N. Arora conducted post mortem and he supported the fact of post mortem. 24. PW-22 Oma Ram has proved that marriage of Dungar Ram was solemnized with deceased Prem Devi and, thereafter, there was regular demand of money as well as plot. 25. PW-23 Kaushaliya is the mother of the deceased Prem Devi. She has reiterated the allegation of demand of dowry and bad conduct of the accused appellant. 26. PW-24 Jawari Ram is the brother of deceased. He has supported the allegation of demand of dowry and quarrel treatment of accused appellant with his son. 27. PW-25 Jabru Khan was working in the Police Station, Pali where he has prepared the forwarding letter to send the articles for chemical examination to the FSL, Jodhpur. 28. PW-26 Narayan Singh who was working as Head Constable in Superintendent of Police Office, Pali, who took molds from the place of occurrence. 29. PW-27 Rajendra Gupta is the witness who has proved tickets purchased from Manthan film hall. 30. PW-28 Gopal Singh was working as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sojat City, who has reiterated investigation and fact that I conducted investigation after adding offence under Section 498A and 304 B IPC. 31. PW-29 Kuna Ram was working as Head Constable in Police Control Room, who took the photographs of the place of occurrence. 32. PW-30 Nand Kishore, Head Constable, who has proved Ex. P/27 whereby ticket of film hall Mathan was taken in possession. 33. PW-31 Khema Ram Gaur who was working as SHO Police Station, Shivpura. He has proved registration of FIR and further investigation conducted by him. 34. We have considered the entire evidence of the prosecution in the light of arguments of the parties. Admittedly, FIR was registered against the accused appellant upon written report (Ex. P/1) submitted by him. The said report was submitted by the accused appellant under his signature before S.H.O Police Station Shivpura, thereafter, formal FIR was registered by the SHO Police Station Shivpura, District Pali on 26.11.2006. Admittedly, FIR was registered against the accused appellant upon written report (Ex. P/1) submitted by him. The said report was submitted by the accused appellant under his signature before S.H.O Police Station Shivpura, thereafter, formal FIR was registered by the SHO Police Station Shivpura, District Pali on 26.11.2006. It is worthwhile to observe that the accused appellant is army personnel and offence for killing of his own wife and two sons has been committed by him when he was on leave. It is expected that army personnel usually not speaking lie and here in this case not only the written report was submitted by the accused appellant himself, but at his instance, the dead bodies of his wife and two sons were recovered vide Exs.P/6, P/7 and P/8 from the place verified by him in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Govind Ram and Mohan Das. During trial, the statement of Govind Ram (PW-4) and Mohan Das (PW-5) were recorded on oath and both these witnesses proved that three bodies were recovered in presence of accused as per his information. So also, they proved Ex. P/5 which is site plan and inquest report of the place where three bodies were recovered by the police upon information given by the accused appellant. 35. Similarly, the father of the deceased Poona Ram (PW-3) categorically made allegation with regard to cruel treatment of the accused appellant with his daughter, so also, proved the allegation that behavior of accused appellant towards his wife was very bad, as he was regularly demanding money. The appellant Dungar Ram was employee of the army, therefore, his wife was living with her in-laws' house. The in-laws were also quarreling with deceased Prem Devi. Upon perusal of statement of PW-2 Poona Ram it is apparent that at the time of recovery of dead body by the police, he was present, so also, this witness proved allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry against the accused appellant which is motive of killing. 36. The witness of recovery PW-6 Ganesh Ram and PW-7 Kan Singh categorically stated in their statement that they were present at the place of occurrence where three bodies were recovered by the police. Upon information of accused appellants the other witnesses PW-21 Dr. 36. The witness of recovery PW-6 Ganesh Ram and PW-7 Kan Singh categorically stated in their statement that they were present at the place of occurrence where three bodies were recovered by the police. Upon information of accused appellants the other witnesses PW-21 Dr. G.N. Arora who has conducted post mortem of all the three deceased has categorically stated before the court that post mortem was conducted by him when he was posted as medical jurist in Government Bangad Hospital, Pali and there were number of injuries upon the body of all the three persons namely, Prem Devi, Anil and Sunil. The investigating officer and all other witnesses of the investigation supported the prosecution case, therefore, we are of the view that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of trustworthy and reliable evidence of confession and circumstantial evidence. It is very case in which the accused appellant killed his wife and two sons in brutal manner, so also, reported the incident to the police in writing under his signature, therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the evidence of confession and testimony of other witnesses. 37. In view of the above, discussion we hold that the finding given by the learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC does not suffer from any illegality or perversity more so, it is a case in which the entire evidence has been appreciated by the learned trial court in accordance with law in proper manner. 38. Consequently, this cr. appeal lacks merit, hence, dismissed.