JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. 1. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 judgment dated 06th of October, 2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara (Trial Court) in Session Case No. 106/2004, is under challenge, whereby the trial court convicted accused appellant Raju @ Rajiv Gupta, for committing offence under Section 302 and passed sentence for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, on 20.08.2004, complainant Vikas Gupta @ Batash (PW.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station-City Kotwali, Bhilwara with following allegations, which reads as under: Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k jkt egksn;] fuosnu gS fd esjk HkkbZ fo'kky xqIrk xr 1@2 ekg ls Lo;a ds edku ua0 9&,Q&36 fryd uxj HkhyokM+k ls jgdj edku dk th.kksZnkj djok jgs FksA mlds lkFk dksVk dk gh jktq xqIrk Hkh jgrk FkkA jkeyky djhxj us eq>s VsfyQksu ij fnuakd 14-08-2004 dks crk;k fd fo'kky HkkbZ lkgc nks] rhu fnu ls xk;c gSA jktq Hkh lgh tkudkjh ugha ns jgk gSA bl lwpuk ij eSa HkhyokM+k vk;k o irk yxk;k rks jktq xqIrk iq= fd'kupUn Hkh ugha feykA vkSj uk gh fo'kky HkkbZ lkgc dh tkudkjh feyhA dy fnukad 19-08-2004 dks 'kke dks jkeyky djhxj ds Hkrhts xksiky us crk;k fd fnu esa 1 cts jktq mlds ikl vk;k FkkA o dgk Fkk fd fo'kky xqIrk dks rks fBdkus yxk fn;k gS vkSj rqe yksxksa us dksVk [kcj D;ksa dh gSA vc jkeyky dh ckjh gSA bl ckr dks ns[krs gq, eq>s iw.kZ fo'okl gks x;k gS fd jktq xqIrk iq= Jh fd'ku pUnz xqIrk fuoklh ljLorh dkWyksuh dksVk us esjs HkkbZ fo'kky xqIrk dks tku ls ekj fn;k gSA Hkonh; fnuakd & 20-08-2004 ¼fodkl xqIrk mQZ crk'k xqIrk½ 3bZ36 egkohj uxj foLrkj ;kstuk dksVk 3. Upon the aforesaid written report, formal F.I.R. No. 468/2004 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara on 20.08.2004 for offence under Section 302 of IPC and investigation commenced. 4. During investigation, the appellant, Raju @ Rajiv Gupta, was arrested on 20.08.2004 at 04.45 PM vide arrest memo (Ex.P/6) and after arrest, the accused appellant gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with respect to recovery of the dead body of deceased Vishal Gupta vide Ex.P/41 on the same day. 4. During investigation, the appellant, Raju @ Rajiv Gupta, was arrested on 20.08.2004 at 04.45 PM vide arrest memo (Ex.P/6) and after arrest, the accused appellant gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with respect to recovery of the dead body of deceased Vishal Gupta vide Ex.P/41 on the same day. In pursuance of the aforesaid information the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the same day vide Ex.P/3 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Jamnalal and Jai Singh and officers of administration and police from House No. 9F-36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara. In the said house, two rooms were under construction and on the room of southern side, there was a lock, which was broke upon; and as per information of accused appellant, the floor was dug by the accused and the dead body of deceased Vishal Gupta was buried. After digging the floor of the room for two feet, the dead body of deceased Vishal Gupta was seen and taken out from the pit. 5. The details of inspection of the place of occurrence was recorded vide Ex.P/4. "Panchnama" (Ex.P/5) of the dead body was also prepared in the presence of five persons. Mobile phone was also recovered vide Ex.P/7 as per information given by accused appellant. Bank passbook of the deceased was recovered as per information given by accused appellant vide Ex.P/11 on 23.08.2004. From the place of occurrence, blood stained pillow, simple and blood stained soil were also taken in possession. The dead body of the deceased was taken to hospital for postmortem. 6. The dead body of the deceased was subjected for postmortem at Govt. Hospital, Bhilwara where Medical Board conducted postmortem of the dead body of Vishal Gupta on 21.08.2004 at 10.15 AM and postmortem report (Ex.P/9) was prepared in which the Board opined that cause of death was tracheal injury (ante mortem) and mode of death is asphyxia. After postmortem, the investigation officer obtained postmortem report (Ex.P/9) for further investigation and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to complainant, Vikas Gupta brother of the deceased, for cremation vide Ex.P/10. As per information given by accused appellant a knife (weapon of offence) was also recovered vide Ex.P/12 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Hardev and Udailal on 23.08.2004 at 04.30 PM from House No. 9F- 36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara. As per information given by accused appellant a knife (weapon of offence) was also recovered vide Ex.P/12 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Hardev and Udailal on 23.08.2004 at 04.30 PM from House No. 9F- 36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara. At the time of recovery of dead body from the said house at the instance of accused appellant, photographs were taken and negatives whereof are on record as Ex.P/16 to Ex.P/37. 7. After completing investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused appellant in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara under Sections 302, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and thereafter the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara transferred the case for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Bhilwara, where trial commenced. 8. The learned trial court after providing an opportunity framed charge against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and thereafter proceeded to record the evidence of prosecution. During trial, statements of 28 prosecution witnesses were recorded and thereafter statements of accused appellant were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in which no explanation was furnished by the accused appellant. Inspite of granting opportunity to lead evidence, no witness was examined by the accused appellant. 9. The learned trial court after recording evidence heard final arguments and convicted the accused appellant for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment impugned dated 06.10.2005 in Session Case No. 106/2004 and passed sentence for life along with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 10. Learned amicus curiae vehemently argued that there is no eyewitness of the incident and FIR was registered against the accused appellant upon written complaint (Ex.P/1) filed by complainant Vikas Gupta @ Batasha (brother of the deceased) after delay on 20.08.2004 in which a fact was disclosed that accused appellant made confession before one Gopal (PW.26) who was working for construction in the house of deceased. The accused appellant was arrested in pursuance to the FIR only on the ground of alleged confession, which is said to be made by the accused before the witness, Gopal (PW.26). The accused appellant was arrested in pursuance to the FIR only on the ground of alleged confession, which is said to be made by the accused before the witness, Gopal (PW.26). According to learned counsel for the appellant evidence of extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence, therefore, conviction cannot be based upon such confession. He, therefore, argued that the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial court against the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC while relying upon the testimony of PW.26-Gopal, is far from the truth. 11. Learned amicus curiae further argued that fact of the recovery of dead body is not supported by any independent witness, so also, in absence of independent eyewitness of the incident and motive, how it can be presumed that appellant has committed an offence of murder. With regard to evidence of extra judicial confession, it is submitted that trial court has erroneously relied upon the testimony of PW.1-Vikas Gupta, PW.22-Ramlal, and PW.26 Gopal, because all these witnesses gave false statement before the court with regard to alleged confession made by the accused appellant. The crux of the argument of learned amicus curiae is that appellant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of evidence of alleged confession and recovery of dead body and other articles at his instance, because there is no reliable or trustworthy evidence to prove the prosecution case, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 12. Learned amicus curiae vehemently submitted that in this case FIR was registered on 20.08.2004 on a complaint (Ex.P/1) submitted by the complainant, Vikas Gupta @ Batash, brother of deceased. In the written report, a fact was disclosed that one Ramlal informed him on telephone on 14.08.2004 that his brother, Vishal (deceased) is missing from last 2-3 days and Raju Gupta was living with him, is not giving any information about him, but FIR was submitted by the complainant on 20.08.2004. As per arguments, it was the duty of the complainant to come immediately at Bhilwara and to trace out his brother, deceased-Vishal or to give information to the police, but there is no explanation by the complainant as to why he keep on mum for six days and gave information to the police after on 20.04.2004. Thus, the whole prosecution story becomes doubtful. 13. Thus, the whole prosecution story becomes doubtful. 13. With regard to statements of Ramlal, who gave information to Vikas Gupta nowhere said that information was given by him on telephone to the complainant, and he has categorically stated that he gave information on telephone to the mother of deceased-Vishal Gupta, and mother has not been examined as witness in this case. In the statements of Ramlal (PW.22), it is nowhere stated by him that on which date Raju @ Rajiv Gupta came and asked Gopal that he has already killed Vishal Gupta and will also kill the person who gave information to the family of the deceased at Kota. The whole prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence is seriously doubtful. 14. With regard to recovery of knife and other articles, it is submitted that as per statements of the investigating officer, the weapon-Knife was recovered from the same house, where dead body of the deceased was recovered after 2-3 days from the date of recovery of dead body. Learned counsel for the appellant thus argued that a question arose when search was already made in the house, where dead body was recovered, then why knife was recovered after the recovery of dead body from the same house. It is also argued that as per passbook (Ex.P/14) of the deceased, Rs. 72,950/- was the balance in the bank account but as per allegations of the prosecution, a cheque of Rs. 35,000/- was placed before the bank for payment but it is not proved that said cheque was produced for payment by the accused appellant and payment was made to him. 15. While inviting our attention towards the statements of Premchand (PW.28) it is submitted that this witness did not identify the accused appellant, therefore, evidence of motive is also not reliable. Lastly, it is argued that merely on the basis of recovery of dead body, which is one of the circumstances, the finding of conviction is bad in the eye of law in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1993 SC 110 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nathu v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1998-99 (Supp.) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 227 and in the case of Jawahar v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 399. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sarup Singh reported in 1998 Crl. L.J. 3292. 16. It is argued that in the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court held that the chain of circumstances are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and conviction cannot be based only on the basis of recovery of articles and dead body only. Therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside because prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused appellant may be acquitted from the charge of murder. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that it is a case in which deceased was brutally murdered by the accused appellant who was living with him in the same house and thereafter buried the dead body in the room, where construction was going at House No. 9F-36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara. It is also argued that the dead body was recovered as per information given by accused appellant. The photography as well as videography was also taken at the time of proceedings of recovery, the entire evidence loudly speak that dead body of deceased-Raju @ Rajiv Gupta, was recovered at the instance of accused appellant and none else. It is also vehemently argued by the Public Prosecutor that there is no question to disbelieve the testimony of Gopal (PW.26) before whom the accused appellant made extra judicial confession, the reference of such confession was specifically mentioned by the complainant in the written complaint (Ex.P./1) upon which FIR was registered. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that sequence of all the facts speak that chain of circumstances right from making extra judicial confession by the accused appellant to recovery of dead body of the deceased as per information of the accused appellant, has been amply proved and established beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt that it was the accused appellant, who has committed murder of deceased Raju @ Rajiv Gupta. It is settle principle of law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt if the case is based upon circumstantial evidence of recovery of dead body and extra judicial confession and in this case, all the witnesses examined in the court, were subject to cross-examination, in which they categorically supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon following judgments: 1. Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1460 2. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh reported in (2000) 1 SCC 471 3. Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, reported in 1997 Crl. J 774 4. Munna Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna v. State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR 2012 SC 2470 5. Ashok Vishwakarma @ Surji v. State reported in 2014 IAD (Delhi) 734 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the finding of trial court, entire evidence and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 19. There is no dispute that deceased-Vishal Gupta and accused appellant-Raju @ Rajiv Gupta were residing in House No. 9F-36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara, where construction was going on. Further, for the purpose of construction one Ramlal (PW.22) was deployed who gave information to Vikas Gupta (brother of deceased) on telephone at Kota on 14.08.2004 that his brother, Vishal Gupta is missing from last 2-3 days and upon enquiry from Raju (accused appellant) he is not giving any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, complainant Vikas Gupta went Bhilwara and as per his complaint on 19.08.2004, Ramlal informed the fact that in the evening his nephew, namely, Gopal informed today at that 01.00 PM, Raju came to him and asked that who gave information at Kota to the family of Vishal Gupta (deceased) that he is missing and also threatened that now he will see Ramlal, who gave information and stated that I have already done away Vikas Gupta and now he will not leave Ramlal also. 20. Upon receiving information, the formal FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant. 20. Upon receiving information, the formal FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant. It is also evident from the fact that on the same day, the police arrested the accused Raju @ Rajiv Gupta, at 04.45 PM and on same day upon his information, dead body of the deceased was recovered from the room of house No. 9F-36 situated in Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara. The dead body of Vishal Gupta was recovered from the room, where it was buried after digging the floor. The investigation officer called SDM and Tehsildar on spot, and in their presence, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. To prove the said fact, witness Chuna Ram (PW.25), who was working as Tehsildar, Bhilwara at that time he gave following statement with respect to recovery of dead body in his presence on the basis of information given by the accused appellant-Raju @ Rajiv Gupta, which reads as under: - ^fnukad & 20-08-2004 dks eSa rglhynkj HkhyokM+k ds in ij FkkA ml fnu eSa ,l ih lk0 ds psEcj esa cSBk FkkA djhc 5 cts 'kke dks lh0vks0 lk0 ,l0Mh0,e0 ds ;gka Qksu vk;kA ,l0Mh0,e0 us dgk vki dks esjs lkFk pyuk gSA eSa ,l0ih0lk0 dh ftIlh esa dksrokyh gksrs gq, tgka lh0vk0 lk0 ugha FksA ge fryd uxj x;sA gekjs vkxs lh vks lhVh toku] i=dkj] foM;ksxzkQj o lh vks lk us crk;k fd veq[k vkneh us ?kVuk dhA gkftj vnkyr eqy0 jktw dks ns[k dj dgk ;s gh O;fDr iqfyl ds lkFk FkkA eqy0 jktq us b'kkjk dj dejk crk;k tgka yk'k xk<+hA dejs es rkyk yxk gqvk FkkA ml rkys dks gekjs lkeus [kqyok;kA dejs esa vfHk;qDr izos'k dj ge lcds lkeus ftlesa lh0 vk0 lk0 vU; iqfyl vf/kdkjhx.k o eSa FkkA yk'k x<+h gksus ds LFkku crk;kA ogka fofM;ksxzkQh gks jgh FkhA eqy us tehu djhc 2&3 QhV [kksnk rks yk'k fn[kkbZ nhA ogka xqIrk uked O;fDr Fkk ftlus yk'k dks vius HkkbZ dh gksuk crk;kA QnZ fliqnZxh yk'k ,DthchV ih0 3 ij ,e ls ,u esjs gLrk{kj gSA iqfyl us uD'kk utjh cuk;k tks ,DthchV ih0 4 gSA ftl ij vkbZ ls ts esjs gLrk{kj gSA^ Similarly, S.D.M., Ashok Kumar (PW.23) categorically stated on oath before the Court that dead body was recovered by the police during investigation as per information given by the accused from House No. 9F-36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara. The statement of PW.23- Ashok Kumar, the then SDM reads as under: fnuakd 20-08-2004 dks eSa mi [k.M+ vf/kdkjh HkhyokM+k ds in ij FkkA djhc lok ikap cts ,l ,p vks Fkkuk dksrokyh us Qksu ls eq>s lwpuk nhA FkksM+h nsj ckn bl laca/k esa lh vks lhVh dk Hkh Qksu vk;k fd ,d edku esa yk'k xM+h gqbZ gSA ftlesa dk;Zikyd eftLV~sV dh mifLFkfr esa fudkyuk gSA blds ckn rglhynkj HkhyokM+k esjs dk;kZy; esa mi] gqvk bl chp fMIVh lkc Hkh ogka vk x;sA ge lc Fkkuk dksrokyh igqapsA ogka tkdj Kkr gqvk fd ,l ,p vks lkc ?kVukLFky ds fy;s jokuk gks pqds gSA ge rhuksa fryd uxj fLFkr ?kVuk LFky igqapsA iqfyl dh xkM+h esa ,d eqyfte FkkA eq0 us dejs dh vkSj b'kkjk dj mlesa yk'k gksuk crk;kA ml dejs ds ckgj rkyk yxk gqvk FkkA tks eqy0 dh enn ls [kqyok;k x;kA edku ds ihNs nks dejksa esa ls nf{k.k okys dejs esa eqy0 ml dejs esa izos'k gqvk o LFkku crk;kA crk;s LFkku ij mlh ls [kqnokbZ djkbZA djhc ,d fQV [kksnus ij fdlh O;fDr dh yk'k x<+h gqbZ fn[kkbZ nh fQj djhc nks <+kbZ fQV [kqnok;k rks ,d O;fDr dh yk'k utj vkbZ ftls ckgj fudyk;kA e'Rrd dk ,d HkkbZ ogka mifLFkr FkkA o vklikl ds yksx Hkh FksA ml O;fDr us vius HkkbZ dh yk'k dks igpkukA bl dk;Zokgh dh fofM;ksxzkQh o QksVksxzkQh iqfyl }kjk djokbZ xbZA QnZ cjkenxh yk'k ,DthchV ih0 3 gSA ftl ij tks ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA ?kVukLFky dk uD'kk utjh cuk;k tks ,DlhchV ih0 4 gSA ftl ij Hkh tks Vw ,p esjs lkbu gSA eSa vkt ml O;fDr dks ns[kdj igpku ldrk gwaA gkftj vnkyr eqy0 ogh gS ftlus yk'k [kksn dj fudkyhA 21. Photographs were also taken as per instructions given by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara by PW.16-Abdul Hmeed (Photographer), and videography was also conducted at the time of recovery of dead body. We have perused photographs taken at the time of recovery by PW.16 Abdul Hameed, which is on record as Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/37 and find that recovery was made in the presence of accused appellant, and this fact is further proved by two officers of the district administration viz. Chuna Ram, the then Tehsilar, Bhilwara (PW.25) and Ashok Kumar, the then SDM (PW.23). Chuna Ram, the then Tehsilar, Bhilwara (PW.25) and Ashok Kumar, the then SDM (PW.23). The other witnesses also proved the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant, Raju @ Rajiv Gupta from House No. 9F-36 Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara, therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the fact that dead body was recovered at the instance of accused appellant from the said house. 22. As per evidence, there is no doubt that accused appellant Raju @ Rajiv Gupta and deceased were living together because in defence, no such plea is taken by the appellant that he was not living with the deceased, therefore, there is no dispute to accept the fact that recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant has been proved by the prosecution and rightly been relied upon by the trial court so as to hold accused appellant guilty. 23. With regard to argument of learned amicus curiae that there was no occasion to give information by accused one after another for recovery of knife (weapon of offence) and clothes on different dates because all the articles were recovered from the house of the deceased on different dates after recovery of dead body. In our opinion, the argument of learned amicus curiae that recovery of weapon and clothes is doubtful, cannot be accepted because it is human nature to save himself, therefore, during investigation, information(s) were given by the accused appellant on different date for recovery of other articles after recovery of dead body. Therefore, there is no reason to disagree with the finding of learned trial court that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. In the case of Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1460, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where on the basis of statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, dead body of deceased was recovered in furtherance of voluntary information furnished by two accused, the natural presumption in absence of explanation was that it was these two accused persons who had murdered the deceased and buried his body. 25. 25. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh reported in (2000) 1 SCC 471 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :- "Three possibilities may be countenanced when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities, the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act." In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, reported in 1997 Crl. J 774, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Where the fact that the dead body was found on the cot inside the house of the accused, it was held to be a telling circumstance against him. It was further held that the accused owed a duty to explain as to how a dead body, which was resultant of a homicide, happened to be in his house. In the absence of any such explanation from him, the implication of the said circumstances is definitely adverse to the accused." 26. In the case of Munna Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna v. State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR 2012 SC 2470 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held that statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 the court can draw an adverse inference against him. 27. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Vishwakarma @ Surji v. State reported in 2014 IAD (Delhi) 734 while considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "Thereafter, after breaking open the floor and digging the earth upto 3/4 ft., one yellow plastic katta was taken out. One dead body was recovered lying wrapped in sheet inside the plastic katta. One iron chain and one sandal like chappal pair was found in the katta. ...... As such mere fact that the proceedings do not bear her signatures, does not cast any doubt regarding her presence at the time of proceedings. Even otherwise, clinching evidence has come on record to prove the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused persons. ....... Another aspect is to be taken note of. All the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused persons have been put to them, yet they could not give any explanation under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 except choosing the mode of denial. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh : (2001) SCC 471 reiterated in Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab : (2013) 1 SCC (Crl.) 1136, it has been held that when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpate him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight that the accused have not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973" 28. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight that the accused have not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973" 28. Recently, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Govind Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 281/2010) decided on 29.08.2016 while relying upon the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (Supra) and Paramasivam & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police reported in (2015) 13 SCC 300 has held as under :- "After arrest of accused-appellant, the recoveries were made by the investigation agency at the instance of accused and he identified the place of occurrence. The reports of Forensic Science Laboratory and CDFD, Hyderabad are conclusive regarding matching of the materials and further no explanation has been tendered by the accused-appellant with regard to the incriminating material against him which provides the missing links. The prosecution has proved all the circumstances which only points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant that he is the only perpetrator of the crime and none else. For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the accused-appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed." 29. We have perused the judgment cited by the learned amicus curiae of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni (supra), and in the case of State of Punjab v. Sarup Singh (supra). In both these cases, the facts were altogether different. In the case of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni (supra), the dead body was found near the portion of building occupied by the accused appellant, but here in this case, the dead body was recovered from the room, in which accused appellant himself was living along with deceased, therefore, the facts of that case are altogether different. 30. In the case of State of Punjab v. Sarup Singh (supra), the said was based upon evidence of last seen together and question of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant was not in question. Therefore, the said judgment is no avail and not applicable in the case in hand. 30. In the case of State of Punjab v. Sarup Singh (supra), the said was based upon evidence of last seen together and question of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused appellant was not in question. Therefore, the said judgment is no avail and not applicable in the case in hand. So far as the two other judgments in the case of Nathu (supra) and in the case of Jawahar (supra) of Division Bench of this Court, are concerned, we have no hesitation to observe that both these judgments are altogether different upon facts of the case, therefore, are not relevant so as to accept the arguments of learned amicus curiae for acquittal. 31. Upon assessment of entire evidence and the fact that prosecution has proved the recovery of dead body and other articles at the instance of accused appellant by leading trustworthy evidence of independent witnesses, who were present at the time of recovery and gave statements before the court that accused appellant present in the court, was present at the time of recovery of the dead body from the House No. 9F-36, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara upon his information. Photography of the recovery of the proceedings was also made, loudly speaks that appellant was very much present at the time of recovery of dead body and the dead body was recovered as per information given by accused appellant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for committing offence of murder of Vishal Gupta (deceased). In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that finding of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 06th of October 2005 does not suffer from any illegality as the same is based upon sound appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution. 32. Resultantly, there is no force in this appeal, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.