JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant D.B. criminal appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the accused/appellant Ramhet S/o Sobran Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/11/2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 154/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Under Section Sentence Awarded 302 of IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two years simple imprisonment. 365 of IPC To undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 201 of IPC To undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 31/07/2005, at about 5:10 PM, the complainant Smt. Guddi W/o Maharaj Singh, by Caste Kushwah R/o Chhattu Ka Pura, Police Station Kolari, District Dholpur submitted a written report (Ex.D-3) to SHO, Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur stating therein that on 21/06/2005 at about 5:00 PM, her husband Shri Maharaj Singh went for taking medicines to Sirmohar at Manpuriya Ka Pura and remained there in the evening. On next day when Sirmohar and Maharaj Singh were going to Dholpur, then Ramhet Kushwah R/o Saimare Ka Pura came there and asked Sirmohar to stay at home and said that he would accompany Maharaj Singh in taking the medicines and since that day, the whereabouts of Maharaj Singh are not known. After about 8-10, days Ramhet and Gaj Singh came to her house and enquired about Maharaj Singh and when she told them that Maharaj Singh has not returned till then, Ramhet and Gaj Singh asked her that if she gives them Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash, they will bring Maharaj Singh at home. The complainant told them that she is not having cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- and how she will pay. The complainant further stated in written report (Ex.D-3) that after 8- 10 days, she took 'Village Panchayat' to Saimare Ka Pura. 2,00,000/- in cash, they will bring Maharaj Singh at home. The complainant told them that she is not having cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- and how she will pay. The complainant further stated in written report (Ex.D-3) that after 8- 10 days, she took 'Village Panchayat' to Saimare Ka Pura. Ramhet was not there, but his inmates Godna, Nihala and Shobha Ram assured her that they would sent Maharaj Singh to her home after two days, but since then her husband has not returned. She suspected that Ramhet and Gaj Singh have kidnapped Maharaj Singh and prayed to help the informant. The complainant also stated that she was searching her husband in relations, here and there but failed. 4. On this written report (Ex.D-3), FIR No. 175/2005 was registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur for offence under Section 365 of IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., 1973 The accused Ramhet was arrested and on his voluntary disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, clothes i.e. pant, shirt, underwear, scarf (Safi), a piece of vest and bones of skull, jaw, five pieces of bones of Maharaj Singh were recovered, at the instance of accused/appellant. The recovered articles were sent to FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) for examination and after usual investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 365, 302 & 201 of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dholpur. Wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur. 5. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 365, 302 & 201 of IPC against the accused/appellant. Charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused/appellant under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellant denied the prosecution evidence and stated that the witnesses speak a lie due to grudge and he has been falsely implicated after detaining him in police station for a month. He also stated that nothing was recovered at his instance and he didn't go with Maharaj Singh from the house of Sirmohar and he is innocent. No evidence was led in defence. During prosecution evidence, statements of five witnesses recorded by the police and written report (Ex.D-3) lodged by Smt. Guddi (PW-5), were marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant for offence under Sections 365, 302 & 201 of IPC and sentenced him as indicated here-in-above. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20/11/2006, hence this appeal. Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the investigation of this case is highly tainted and unfair as the Investigation Officer did not collect material evidence to prove the death of Maharaj Singh. The prosecution has failed to prove that the recovered bones of skull and jaw etc. are part of the body of Maharaj Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that there is no direct evidence in the case to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and the case squarely rests upon circumstantial evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. But the death of Maharaj Singh itself is not proved, thus, the other circumstances are not sufficient to held the accused/appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to the disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused/appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and alleged pointing out of the spot, recovery of blood stained clothes and bones of skull and jaw etc., which create doubt on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, thus, it is not proved beyond doubt that the recovered bones of skull and jaw were part of the body of Maharaj Singh. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the First Information Report was lodged after inordinate delay with no reasonable explanation, which fact is sufficient to infer that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel also submitted that the statements of witnesses of last seen were recorded after inordinate delay, which lost its significance, as such the circumstance of last seen is also not proved against the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned trial Court has committed a gross error in holding that there was motive for the appellant to commit murder of Maharaj Singh on the ground that it is he, who demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant, whereas this fact was proved to be false, according to the statement of complainant herself. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness and that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses, as such their evidence is not reliable at all and prayed to allow the appeal and to quash and set aside impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the appellant from the charges levelled against him. 12. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Raghav learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, which proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of any substance. 13. There is no eye witness of the incident of murder of Maharaj Singh and entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has found following circumstances against the accused/appellant to connect him with the crime:- A. Last seen with the deceased B. Recovery of blood stained clothes and skull, jaw and some bones of the deceased at the instance of the appellant C. Motive A. Last seen with the deceased:- 14. Smt. Guddi (PW-5) is wife of Maharaj Singh, on whose written report (Ex.D-3) FIR No. 175/2005 (Ex.P-11) was registered at Police Station Sadar, Dholpur District Dholpur and the investigation commenced. Smt. Guddi (PW-5) is wife of Maharaj Singh, on whose written report (Ex.D-3) FIR No. 175/2005 (Ex.P-11) was registered at Police Station Sadar, Dholpur District Dholpur and the investigation commenced. The witness deposed that about eight months ago, her husband went for taking medicines to Sirmohar at Manpuriya Ka Pura and stayed there in the evening. On next day, when Sirmohar and Maharaj Singh were ready to go for taking medicines, Rahmet Kushwah came there and asked Sirmohar to stay at his home and said that he would accompany him (Maharaj Singh) in taking the medicines. Ramhet Kushwah took her husband with him but her husband didn't return after taking medicines. When her husband didn't return for about four days, then she went to Manpuriya Ka Pura, where Sirmohar told her that Ramhet Kushwah went with Maharaj Singh for taking medicines. Thereafter, Ramhet Kushwah came to her in village Chhattu Ka Pura. She asked about whereabouts of her husband, then Ramhet Kushwah told that her husband will come only when she gives Rs. 2,00,000/-. The witness told him that she is not having Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter, she took 'Village Panchayat' to Saimare Ka Pura. Ramhet Kushwah was not there. Nihal Singh, Shobha Ram and Godana met her there, who assured that they will send her husband to her home after two days, but whereabouts of her husband is not known till today. Ramhet Kushwah has killed her husband. 15. Sirmohar (PW-4) is brother-in-law [sister's husband (Jija)] of Maharaj Singh. The witness deposed that about seven months ago, his brother-in-law Maharaj Singh came to him at Manpuriya Ka Pura at about 7:00 PM and stayed with him. Maharaj Singh used to come to him frequently. In next day morning, Maharaj Singh told to accompany him for taking medicines. At about 11-12 hours in day, Ramhet Kushwah came to him. When Maharaj Singh asked the witness to accompany him for taking medicines, then Ramhet Kushwah asked the witness to stay there and said that he would accompany Maharaj Singh in taking the medicines. Thereafter, only Ramhet Kushwah and Maharaj Singh both, went for taking medicines. Maharaj Singh did not return to his home. On third day, Smt. Guddi W/o Maharaj Singh came to his house and told that Maharaj Singh didn't return to his home, then he told that Ramhet Kushwah went with Maharaj Singh for taking medicines. Thereafter, only Ramhet Kushwah and Maharaj Singh both, went for taking medicines. Maharaj Singh did not return to his home. On third day, Smt. Guddi W/o Maharaj Singh came to his house and told that Maharaj Singh didn't return to his home, then he told that Ramhet Kushwah went with Maharaj Singh for taking medicines. Thereafter, Smt. Guddi returned to her home. Ramhet Kushwah is brother-in-law (Saadoo Bhaee) of Maharaj Singh. After about eight days, the witness and his wife Smt. Munni (PW-3) went to Smt. Guddi (PW-5) at village Chhattu Ka Pura. Smt. Guddi told that Maharaj Singh didn't return till then. At the same time Ramhet Kushwah and Gaj Singh came there. Smt. Guddi enquired from both about whereabouts of her husband Maharaj Singh then both said that Maharaj Singh is with them and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-. Smt. Guddi told that she is not having money, bring her husband Maharaj Singh and then he will give money to them. Thereafter, Ramhet Kushwah and Gaj Singh both left there. 16. Smt. Munni (PW-3) is sister of Maharaj Singh and wife of Sirmohar (PW-4). The witness gave almost similar statement as that of Sirmohar (PW-4), and stated that at about seven months ago, her brother Maharaj Singh came in evening to her house and stayed there in night. On next day Ramhet Kushwah came there, who is brother-in-law (Saadoo Bhaee) of Maharaj Singh. Maharaj Singh came to her house for taking medicines. From her house, Maharaj Singh and Ramhet Kushwah went to Dholpur for taking medicines and both of them did not return. After three days, her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Guddi came to her and told that Maharaj Singh did not return to her village. She told to Guddi that Ramhet Kushwah took Maharaj Singh from her house. 17. Preetam Singh (PW-1) is family member of Smt. Munni (PW-3) and Sirmohar (PW-4). The witness deposed that Maharaj Singh used to come to Sirmohar and he (the witness) knows him. About six months ago, Maharaj Singh came to his village Manpuriya Ka Pura and met him and stayed there in night with Sirmohar. On next day, when he was on his field, he saw Maharaj Singh and Ramhet Kushwah together. After 8-10 days, wife of Maharaj Singh came to his village and told that Maharaj Singh came here but did not return till then and he is missing. On next day, when he was on his field, he saw Maharaj Singh and Ramhet Kushwah together. After 8-10 days, wife of Maharaj Singh came to his village and told that Maharaj Singh came here but did not return till then and he is missing. The witness also stated that after the day when he saw Ramhet Kushwah and Maharaj Singh going on road together, he never saw Maharaj Singh. 18. Suresh (PW-7) is nephew of Maharaj Singh. The witness deposed that Ramhet Kushwah, present in Court is brother-in-law (Saadoo Bhaee) of Maharaj Singh. His aunt Smt. Guddi sold a field situated in her maternal village Dukepura. Maharaj Singh went to Sirmohar at Manpuriya Ka Pura for taking medicines. Ramhet Kushwah told to Sirmohar that he would accompany Maharaj Singh in taking the medicines. Since then, Ramhet kushwah did not return Maharaj Singh. Maharaj Singh didn't come back to his home. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was not present when Ramhet Kushwah accompanied Maharaj Singh in taking medicines. 19. Ramveer (PW-12) is sister's son (Bhanja) of Maharaj Singh and is resident of Kareempur, Dholpur. The witness deposed that about 8-9 months ago, Maharaj Singh and Ramhet Kushwah met him in day hours at circle of Gulab Bagh and both were going together on foot, towards Jagdish Talkies. At that time, the witness was standing there with his rikshaw, awaiting customer. The witness also stated that he called Maharaj Singh and asked him as to where they are going but they didn't stop and proceeded towards Jagdish Talkies. In cross-examination, the witness stated that previously he didn't know Ramhet Kushwah. Police told him the name of accused, to be Ramhet Kushwah. 20. From perusal of statements of the above witnesses, it transpires that Preetam Singh (PW-1), Smt. Munni (PW-3), Sirmohar (PW-4) and Ramveer (PW-12) are the persons who have last seen Maharaj Singh alive in the company of the accused/appellant and thereafter, Maharaj Singh neither returned nor he was seen anywhere. The witness Guddi (PW-5) and Suresh (PW-7) gave hearsay evidence as they themselves did not last see Maharaj Singh, in the company of Ramhet Kushwah, the appellant. Written report was lodged on 31/07/2005. Police recorded the statement of Smt. Guddi and Sirmohar on 01/08/2005. Munni was examined on 02/08/2005, Preetam Singh and Ramveer were examined on 04/08/2005 by the Investigation Officer. Written report was lodged on 31/07/2005. Police recorded the statement of Smt. Guddi and Sirmohar on 01/08/2005. Munni was examined on 02/08/2005, Preetam Singh and Ramveer were examined on 04/08/2005 by the Investigation Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police with inordinate delay. There is no contradiction in the statements of the witnesses on material facts. From the above discussions, it is proved that Maharaj Singh, was last seen alive in the company of Ramhet Kushwah, the appellant herein. In view of the discussions made above, the circumstance of last seen of Maharaj Singh with the appellant Ramhet Kushwah, is proved beyond reasonable doubt, which goes against the accused/appellant. B. Recovery of blood stained clothes and skull, jaw, some bones of the deceased, at the instance of the appellant:- 21. Rajveer Singh (PW-15) SHO, Sadar Dholpur has deposed that on 31/07/2005, Smt. Guddi wife of Maharaj Singh came along with Sirmohar and submitted a written report (Ex.D-3). He made his endorsement on the written report and the FIR No. 175/2005 was registered for offence under Section 365 of IPC and the investigation was handed over to Surajbhan sub-Inspector (PW-11). 22. Surajbhan (PW-11) deposed that on 31/07/2005, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police Station Sadar, Dholpur. On that day, he received FIR No. 175/2005 under Section 365 of IPC, for investigation. During investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused Ramhet Kushwah on 06/08/2005 vide arrest memo Ex.P-2 in presence of witness Bhanwar Singh (PW-6) and Goverdhan Singh. The witness proved his signature, thumb impression of the accused Ramhet Kushwah and signatures of the witnesses on the arrest memo. The witness also deposed that on 07/08/2005 at 7:30 AM, the accused gave information under Section 27 vide Ex.P-5 that corpse of Maharaj Singh is lying on the hill of village Longpura, which he can get recovered. In consequence of information, they proceeded to the hill of village Longpura and reached there at 8:30 AM. Site plan of place of occurrence Ex.P-6 was prepared at the instance of the accused Ramhet Kushwah, in presence of witnesses. In consequence of information, they proceeded to the hill of village Longpura and reached there at 8:30 AM. Site plan of place of occurrence Ex.P-6 was prepared at the instance of the accused Ramhet Kushwah, in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, clothes worn by the deceased Maharaj Singh at the time of his death, were seized from there vide Ex.P-7, i.e., shirt, pant, underwear, scarf (safi) and a piece of vest, at the instance of the accused and were sealed on the spot. Thereafter, bones of jaw of Maharaj Singh alongwith five pieces of bones were recovered at 9:15 AM vide Ex.P-8, at the instance of the accused, and were sealed on the spot. The witness also stated that recovered jaw was of a human being and 15 teeth were there in the jaw. Ramhet, the accused and Sirmohar (PW-4) identified the jaw, to be of Maharaj Singh. Thereafter, twenty meters away from the place of occurrence, a skull of human being was recovered from the hill of village Longpura vide Ex.P-9 in presence of the witnesses, at the instance of accused Ramhet Kushwah, and which was sealed on the spot. The witness proved signatures of his own and motbir witnesses, and thumb impressions of the accused Ramhet on the memos prepared by him on the spot. 23. Sirmohar (PW-4) deposed that he accompanied police to the hill of village Longpura, where police recovered skull, bones, jaw etc., pant, shirt, underwear and a piece of vest of Maharaj Singh, at the instance of Ramhet. In Court, the witness identified the clothes i.e., scarf (Safi), pant, shirt, underwear and a piece of vest, to be of Maharaj Singh and marked exhibits thereon. The witness also deposed that he recognizes the clothes because Maharaj Singh came to him 8-10 times, while wearing these clothes. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Ramhet Kushwah himself told to the witness that the skull is of Maharaj Singh. 24. Kishan Singh (PW-8) was constable in Police Station Sadar, Dholpur at the relevant time. The witness deposed that on 08/09/2005, he took three sealed packets alongwith one sealed envelope to be deposited in FSL Jaipur, which he deposited on 09/09/2005 and obtained receipt Ex.P-3, which he gave in the office. The witness also stated that entries were made in Rojnamcha for his movement from police station and return. The witness deposed that on 08/09/2005, he took three sealed packets alongwith one sealed envelope to be deposited in FSL Jaipur, which he deposited on 09/09/2005 and obtained receipt Ex.P-3, which he gave in the office. The witness also stated that entries were made in Rojnamcha for his movement from police station and return. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that he received the articles from HM Ramesh Chandra (PW-14). 25. Ramesh Chandra (PW-14) is head constable and Maalkhana incharge in Police Station Sadar, Dholpur. The witness deposed that on 07/08/2005, Investigation Officer deposited one skull of human being duly sealed and marked B, jaw of human being and five pieces of bones duly sealed and one sealed packet containing pant, shirt, underwear and scarf (safi) in Maalkhana, which were deposited in register at item No. 370. All the three packets were sent to FSL with constable Kishan Singh (PW-8), who deposited the same on 09/09/2005 and obtained receipt. 26. Rajveer Singh (PW-15) is second Investigation Officer and SHO in Police Station Sadar, Dholpur. The witness deposed that on 08/09/2005, he sent three sealed packets to FSL for examination, with constable Kishan Singh. The witness proved the entries of movement of Kishan Singh made in the Rojnamcha of the police station, to be Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16. It transpires from the above evidence that the FIR was lodged on 31/07/2005 suspecting the role of the appellant in abduction of Maharaj Singh and thereafter his missing. The accused/appellant was arrested on 06/08/2005. During police custody, the appellant gave a disclosure statement Ex.P-5 on 07/08/2005 at 7:30 AM to Surajbhan (PW-11), Investigation Officer of the case. In consequence of disclosure statement given by the appellant, Investigation Officer reached to the hill of village Longpura along with Sirmohar (PW-4), at the instance of the appellant. The appellant spotted the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.P-6 on the same day at 8:30 AM and thereafter, clothes worn by Maharaj Singh, the deceased, were seized from that place, at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P-7. Thereafter, jaw of a human being with five pieces of bones and a skull of human being, were also seized vide Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 respectively, at the instance of the appellant. Thereafter, jaw of a human being with five pieces of bones and a skull of human being, were also seized vide Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 respectively, at the instance of the appellant. The recovered clothes of Maharaj Singh were sealed on the spot and marked "A", jaw and five pieces of bones recovered vide Ex.P-8 were sealed on the spot and marked "C". Similarly skull seized vide Ex.P-9 was sealed on the spot and marked "B". It also transpires that Investigation Officer Surajbhan (PW-11) deposited the sealed articles in Maalkhana of the police station and thereafter, aforesaid three sealed packets were sent to FSL for examination. 27. Prosecution has also produced FSL report Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-14. According to FSL report Ex.P-14, three packets properly sealed bearing impressions and marked as "A", "B" & "C", which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded. On morphological and anatomical examination, exhibits from packet marked "B" & "C" were found to contain bones of a human adult and the packet marked "A" was forwarded to serology division for necessary examination. According to FSL report Ex.P-13, on serological examination, the blood stains on shirt and scarf (safi) were found to be of human origin and origin of the stains on pant, underwear, piece of vest could not be determined due to not sufficient for the test. The blood group of the stains on shirt and scarf (safi) from packet "A", was inconclusive. 28. It also transpires that no population is there on the hill of village Longpura, and the place of occurrence, place of recovery of clothes of Maharaj Singh, place of recovery of skull, jaw and bones were not in the knowledge of police. The said places are not in the reach of general public. The clothes recovered vide Ex.P-7 at the instance of the appellant, in consequence of disclosure statement given by him, have been identified by Sirmohar (PW-4), to be of Maharaj Singh, the deceased. Bones, skull and jaw were also lying near the place of recovery of clothes of Maharaj Singh, which have been certified by the FSL to be of a human adult. Sirmohar has identified the clothes, to be of Maharaj Singh stating that Maharaj Singh came to him 8-10 times while wearing the clothes, which were recovered by the police. Bones, skull and jaw were also lying near the place of recovery of clothes of Maharaj Singh, which have been certified by the FSL to be of a human adult. Sirmohar has identified the clothes, to be of Maharaj Singh stating that Maharaj Singh came to him 8-10 times while wearing the clothes, which were recovered by the police. The circumstance of recovery of clothes of the deceased Maharaj Singh and recovery of skull, jaw and bones of an adult human being from the same place, goes against the accused/appellant. 29. As discussed above, skull and jaw of an adult human being and five pieces of bones were recovered at the instance of the appellant, from an isolated place situated on a hill, in consequence of disclosure statement given by him. Thus, there may be following three probabilities:- (a) that the accused saw any other person hiding dead body of a human; or (b) that the accused has been told by someone that dead body of a human being is hidden at the place; or (c) that the accused hid the dead body himself. 30. In the present case the accused/appellant spoke nothing in the Court regarding first two probabilities, therefore, the Court can safely infer that the accused/appellant hid the dead body himself. The place of recovery and the conditions in which the clothes of Maharaj Singh were recovered, are much significant. It is also pertinent to note that place of recovery of skull, jaw and bones of human being is situated near the place of recovery of clothes of Maharaj Singh. The appellant did not give any explanation as to how he came to know that skull, jaw and bones of a human adult and clothes of Maharaj Singh are lying on the hill of village Longpura. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the appellant had knowledge about the murder of Maharaj Singh and the recovered skull, jaw and bones are of the deceased Maharaj Singh. C. Motive:- 31. The prosecution has come out with a case that the appellant Ramhet Kushwah is brother-in-law (Saadoo Bhaee) of Maharaj Singh, the deceased. Smt. Guddi (PW-5) wife of Maharaj Singh sold agricultural land of her father, which was situated in her maternal village Dukepura. Ramhet Kushwah, the appellant was asking for Rs. C. Motive:- 31. The prosecution has come out with a case that the appellant Ramhet Kushwah is brother-in-law (Saadoo Bhaee) of Maharaj Singh, the deceased. Smt. Guddi (PW-5) wife of Maharaj Singh sold agricultural land of her father, which was situated in her maternal village Dukepura. Ramhet Kushwah, the appellant was asking for Rs. 2,00,000/- of his share, from Smt. Guddi (PW-5) and her husband Maharaj Singh and for this purpose, the appellant abducted Maharaj Singh from the house of Sirmohar (PW-4) on the pretext that he would accompany Maharaj Singh in taking the medicines, and after abduction, the appellant committed murder of Maharaj Singh and thrown his body on the hill of village Longpura. 32. In this respect Guddi (PW-5) has deposed that the appellant accompanied Maharaj Singh from the house of Sirmohar (PW-4) for taking the medicines and since that day, whereabouts of Maharaj Singh are not known. Thereafter, Ramhet Kushwah came to her. She enquired from Ramhet Kushwah about her husband, then he demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for her husband. The witness told to Ramhet Kushwah that she is not having Rs. 2,00,000/- and how she will pay, then Ramhet Kushwah left her house. The witness also stated that thereafter, she took Panchayat to village Saimare Ka Pura. Ramhet Kushwah was not there. Godana, Shobharam and Nihal Singh assured that they would send her husband to her home after two days. In cross-examination, the witness stated that demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- by Gaj Singh is wrongly written in written report Ex.D-3 and police statement Ex.D-4. The fact of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- by Ramhet Kushwah and Gaj Singh is mentioned there in the relevant portions of Ex.D- 3 and Ex.D-4. 33. Preetam Singh (PW-1) deposed that he went to the village of Ramhet Kushwah with Panchayat. Ramhet Kushwah was not there but his brothers were there. Panchayat told to the brothers of Ramhet Kushwah to trace out Maharaj Singh. Brother's of Ramhet Kushwah assured to inform within two days but they did not inform till now. 34. Smt. Munni (PW-3), Sirmohar (PW-4), Suresh (PW-7) and Het Singh (PW-13) also stated that they were present at the house of Smt. Guddi (PW-5), when conversation took place between Smt. Guddi and Ramhet Kushwah, regarding whereabouts of Maharaj Singh and demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by Ramhet Kushwah for release of Maharaj Singh. 34. Smt. Munni (PW-3), Sirmohar (PW-4), Suresh (PW-7) and Het Singh (PW-13) also stated that they were present at the house of Smt. Guddi (PW-5), when conversation took place between Smt. Guddi and Ramhet Kushwah, regarding whereabouts of Maharaj Singh and demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by Ramhet Kushwah for release of Maharaj Singh. In cross-examination, PW-3 Smt. Munni stated that Ramhet Kushwah demanded from Guddi, Rs. 2,00,000/- of his share in the agricultural land. Het Singh (PW-13), in cross-examination, denied the suggestion that Ramhet Kushwah never came to Smt. Guddi and he didn't demand Rs. 2,00,000/-. The prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined at length but no such material contradiction has come in the statements of the witnesses, which create any doubt on their testimony. 35. In Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 12 SCC 644 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in each and every case, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove it's case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In view of this, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 36. In view of the discussions made above, the prosecution has proved that the accused appellant Ramhet Kushwah abducted Maharaj Singh to get Rs. 2,00,000/- from Smt. Guddi (PW-5) and her husband Maharaj Singh, on account of his share in the sale proceeds of agricultural land of his father, which was sold by Smt. Guddi (PW-5). 37. It is also contended that the First Information Report was lodged after inordinate delay with no reasonable explanation. In this respect Smt. Munni (PW-3) has stated that report was not lodged because Ramhet Kushwah assured for return of Maharaj Singh. 37. It is also contended that the First Information Report was lodged after inordinate delay with no reasonable explanation. In this respect Smt. Munni (PW-3) has stated that report was not lodged because Ramhet Kushwah assured for return of Maharaj Singh. The prosecution has proved that the informant Smt. Guddi (PW-5) took village Panchayat to the village of the accused, where accused was not there but his inmates assured to trace out Maharaj Singh and to inform. It is admitted fact that the deceased Maharaj Singh and the appellant Ramhet Kushwah are brother-in-law (Saadoo Bhaee) of each other and are in near relation. Neither there is any evidence regarding amity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused/appellant nor such suggestions was given to the witnesses in cross-examination, thus, the question of false implication of the appellant, does not arise. 38. In view of above, the evidence produced by the prosecution is cogent and reliable and the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of Sections 365, 302 & 201 of IPC against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has looked into every material aspect of the matter and rightly convicted the accused/appellant. We see no infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the accused/appellant. There is no scope to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.