JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Jugal Kishore challenging judgment and order dated 08.07.1988 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby he has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and under Section 201 IPC to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that on 25.09.1985, a written report (Exhibit P-15) was lodged at Police Station Losal, District Sikar by Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12) mentioning therein that informant left his home in the morning for going to his shop. Later on, his younger brother, i.e. accused-appellant came to his shop and told him that his younger brother’s wife had died due to burns. On the basis of this information, the police proceeded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-1) was prepared. Site was inspected and site plan with description memo (Exhibit P-2) was prepared. Near the dead body, a steel Jug was recovered. Semi burnt clothes of the deceased, her bangles and hairs were also seized. A bag was also recovered. Kerosene stained scrapings along with sample scrapings of floor were recovered. Postmortem of dead body was got conducted. Thereafter the case was converted into that of murder and statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested on 02.10.1985 vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-23). His injuries were got examined vide Injury Report (Exhibit P-13). Appellant gave an information regarding his pants which was entered into Exhibit P-25. Thereafter, the pants was recovered. After conclusion of investigation, challan was filed agaisnt the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikar, who subsequently committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to secure conviction of the accused-appellant produced 22 witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence. The defence produced 4 witnesses and did not produce any document. The trial court, upon conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 08.07.1988 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. V. R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the accused-appellant has wrongly been convicted. There is no legal evidence on record to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of his own wife. The so-called circumstances, which have been read against the appellant, are not established on the basis of any legal evidence. The learned trial court has drawn its conclusion merely on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. There is absolute lack of motive, which might have prompted the appellant to take the life of his own wife. On the contrary, relations between wife and husband were very cordial. The learned trial court has erred in ignoring this significant aspect. The findings recorded by the learned trial court that Smt. Kiran (wife of appellant) had been strangulated to death is solely based on conjectures, which cannot be sustained. There are many missing links in the prosecution story. Many links in the chain of circumstances have not been proved by prosecution. In the face of those missing links no inference or presumption can be drawn against the appellant. The recovery of pants on the basis of alleged information of appellant is not proved or record. Such recovery could not be read against the appellant. The injury on the leg of the appellant cannot be said to have been the result of burning. There is no cogent evidence available on record to hold conclusively that the impugned injury was caused by fire, much less, during any attempt on the part of appellant to burn his wife. The learned trial court has discarded the statement of witnesses, who were examined in defence, in a casual manner. Nothing adverse has been brought on record which could shake the credibility of the defence witnesses. The learned trial court has discarded the statement of witnesses, who were examined in defence, in a casual manner. Nothing adverse has been brought on record which could shake the credibility of the defence witnesses. The learned trial court has drawn an uncalled for inference against the appellant, namely, his alleged absconding after occurrence. There is an adequate explanation available on record on the point of his contemporaneous movement of appellant. The so-called circumstances, which have been read against the appellant are neither proved, nor they are conclusive in nature. The different memos prepared during investigation have not been proved by a lawful evidence. Even the investigating officer has not been produced in evidence. The learned trial court has relied on these unproved memos and same has resulted in failure of justice. 4. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the incident took place on 25.09.1985 on which day, a mrig report (Exhibit P-15) was lodged by Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12), brother of the accused-appellant, but FIR (Exhibit P-24) was not lodged till 29.09.1985 because who was the accused was not known. It is only after the post mortem, which was conducted on 26.09.1985, FIR in the present case was registered on 29.09.1985. Even in this FIR, name of the accused was not known and therefore, it was not mentioned therein. FIR was lodged in proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. In the post mortem report (Exhibit P-14), it was opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and bruise were post mortem in nature. Surprisingly, no relative of the deceased has been produced as witness to allege that the accused had any kind of strained relations with the deceased. On the contrary from the evidence that has been produced on record, it is established that it was a love marriage and the accused married the deceased against the wishes of her brother and bhabhi. Reference has been made to statement of Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12), brother-in-law of the deceased and Kaushalya (P.W.-16), his wife, who both have stated that initially accused-appellant was engaged to younger sister of Kaushalya but thereafter, the accused broke the engagement and married the deceased. These witnesses are in unison in saying that relations between the accused and the deceased were quite cordial. 5. These witnesses are in unison in saying that relations between the accused and the deceased were quite cordial. 5. Learned counsel argued that merely because the post mortem report indicated that the deceased did not die of burn injuries, but she died due to asphyxia brought about by strangulation does not establish that it was the accused-appellant alone, who could have strangulated her. Learned counsel referred to statement of Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12), brother of the accused; Kaushalya (P.W.16) bhabhi of the accused and Shanti (P.W.18), mother of the accused. Shanti (P.W.18) has stated that Saroj (P.W.17), sister of the appellant went to the agricultural field early in the morning. Thereafter, the accused-appellant also went to agricultural field. Hanuman got up around 8.00 A.M. and went to village Beri at his tailoring shop. Deceased Kiran had prepared food for him because Kaushalya delivered a baby only 7 days ago. She then stated that she also went. This statement has been corroborated by Hanuman (P.W.12) and Kaushalya (P.W.16). Learned counsel argued that section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the accused-appellant because as per the evidence of the prosecution, he was not alone at home. Learned counsel referred to statement of Saroj (P.W.17), sister of the accused, Shanti (P.W.18), mother of the accused and Kaushalya (P.W.16) bhabhi of the accused. Learned counsel in support of his argument cited judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh, JT 2014 (8) SC 50. 6. It is argued that investigating officer has seized steel jug, which allegedly contained kerosene oil used for putting the deceased on fire and a rope (‘nada’), which was allegedly used for ligature to strangulate the deceased and was found intact in the neck of the deceased, but no efforts were made to ascertain whether anyone of them contain finger prints of the accused-appellant, which could have been best evidence in the present case. Therefore, the appellant cannot be linked with the crime. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhal Singh Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, JT 2016 (9) SC 336. Learned counsel argued that allegation that the accused had a burn mark on his right leg as per MLR of the accused-appellant (Exhibit P-13) and the pants allegedly worn by the accused and recovered at his instance from the shop of Tarachand (P.W.5). State of Chhattisgarh, JT 2016 (9) SC 336. Learned counsel argued that allegation that the accused had a burn mark on his right leg as per MLR of the accused-appellant (Exhibit P-13) and the pants allegedly worn by the accused and recovered at his instance from the shop of Tarachand (P.W.5). Both attesting witnesses namely Tarachand (P.W.13) and Jaisraj (P.W.14) to this recovery have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, which was obviously a planted recovery. It is argued that pants, which was allegedly burnt on right leg, was not produced and was not shown to the witnesses, therefore, this cannot be read against the accused-appellant. FSL Report (Exhibit P-31) also does not conclusively prove that the pants contained any human blood as the blood was not found sufficient to determine its origin. It is argued that Investigating Officer, Suresh Kumar Katariya was not produced because he had died but S.H.O., Rajesh Beniwal (P.W.20) was produced, who merely conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., who cannot be relied to prove the prosecution exhibits. 7. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel argued that alleged burn injury said to be found on right leg of the accused was fully explained by him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to question no. 11 that while working in the agricultural field, he was injured by fawra about 10-12 days ago. Even Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Jain (P.W.10), who prepared MLR of the accused-appellant, in cross-examination admitted that kind of injury which the accused was having could also be, apart from burn, an old injury, which might have developed infection. Learned counsel argued that Dr. Vijay Kumar Sabu (P.W.11) has though stated that rope used for strangulating the deceased was found around the neck in half burnt condition, it does not appeal to logic that if the accused put the dead body to fire, he would not remove the rope (nada) and would allow the same around the neck to be later used as evidence against him. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant is not only incomplete but also it has several missing links and it cannot be conclusively held that it would be appellant alone and none else, who would have committed murder of the deceased. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant is not only incomplete but also it has several missing links and it cannot be conclusively held that it would be appellant alone and none else, who would have committed murder of the deceased. Learned counsel referred to examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., especially question no. 18, in response to which the accused-appellant stated that he went to agricultural field. His sister Saroj left the home and then he returned back to market around 9.30-10.00 A.M. This fact has also been corroborated by Saroj (P.W.17) and Shanti (P.W.18). Learned counsel referred to written explanation given in defence by the accused-appellant in which he stated that when he came from the agricultural field to the market and went to Wood House, shop of Mangilal Jain, Gauri Shankar came there and informed that his wife was burnt. At that time, Ashok, Mangilal, Rambabu Soni were also present there. Reference has been made to statements of Mangilal (D.W.1), Rambabu (D.W.2); Ashok Sharma (D.W.3); Gauri Shankar Sharma (D.W.4), who have supported this defence version. 8. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and argued that conduct of the accused-appellant as per Section 8 of the Evidence act would be quite relevant to determine his involvement. Reference is made to statement of Rajesh Beniwal (P.W.20), who stated that when he went to the house of the accused, he was surprised to notice that accused-appellant was not present at his home. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that accused-appellant had deliberately gone from the house, which is explained from his arrest memo (Exhibit P-23) according to which the accused-appellant had a burn injury mark on his right leg. MLR of the accused-appellant (Exhibit P-13) of the accused corroborates this fact which has been proved by Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Jain (P.W.10). Surjaram (P.W.19), who is an independent and attesting witness thereof, has also categorically stated that when the accused was arrested he had a black burn mark on one of his legs. Not only this, pants of the accused recovered vide Exhibit P-18 also corroborates this because therein it is mentioned that the pants was fond burnt on one of its legs and it contained human blood too. Not only this, pants of the accused recovered vide Exhibit P-18 also corroborates this because therein it is mentioned that the pants was fond burnt on one of its legs and it contained human blood too. Even if therefore its origin could not be established due to insufficiency of blood, as per FSL Report (Exhibit P-31), the fact that the pants was found burnt and there was also a corresponding injury on the right leg conclusively prove that the accused had a burn injury at the place corresponding to the burn mark in the pants. This happened when the accused-appellant put the deceased on fire. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that evidence suggests that other family members had left the house and wife of the informant Kaushalya was alone at home and was not in a position to move because she delivered a baby and only the complainant was taking rest, wife of the accused was found burn in the room which was jointly shared by both of them and therefore, presumption has to be drawn against the appellant with reference to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. 10. Indisputably, in the post mortem report (Exhibit P-14), cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation and also mentioned that bruise found on the deceased were post mortem in nature. There was fracture of left coron of hyoid bone. This post mortem report has been proved by Dr. Vijay Kumar Sabu (P.W.11), who stated that the deceased was strangulated by use of rope around her neck which contained ligature mark all around. Post mortem was conducted on 26.09.1985 and duration of death was 24-36 hours. Hyoid bone was found fractured near left coron. Burn injuries found on the dead body were post mortem in nature. It therefore conclusively proved that death of Kiran was not suicidal but it was homicidal death. 11. Although Chanda (P.W.4) and Tarachand (P.W.5) have turned hostile, but both of them stated that they did not hear any sound of weeping in the house of the accused where his wife was burnt. They denied having given statements to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-9 respectively) that accused after putting his wife on fire ran towards agricultural field. They denied having given statements to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-9 respectively) that accused after putting his wife on fire ran towards agricultural field. Hanuman (P.W.12) informant and brother of the accused-appellant has stated that the accused reached him in village Beri Jatanpura around 11.30 A.M. in a jeep and informed that his wife has been burnt. When he reached back home, several persons had assembled there. His brother was also there. Thereafter, he (this witness) went to lodge the report with the Police. Police prepared panchnama of the dead body (Exhibit P-1), which also contained his signatures. Even this witness has proved that steel jug (Article 1) was recovered from the room of the deceased/appellant. This witness has tried to explain burn injury of the accused-appellant by saying that he received this injury from fawra while working in the field around 10-12 days ago. 12. Tarachand (P.W.13) has stated that his tailoring shop was situated in street of Chiranji Panwadi and 2-3 shops there after, shop of Jaisraj darji was situated. This witness and Birdhichand (P.W.14) have not supported recovery of the pants vide memo Exhibit P-18, which was found to be burnt in its right leg. Exhibit P-18 has been proved by Ramdhan (P.W.21), who was reader of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Jugal Kishore Katariya. Shri Suresh Kumar Katariya was the investigating officer but he died before his testimony could be record by the trial court. This witness stated that recovery memo of pants (Exhibit P-18) was prepared by him and it contained signatures of Shri Suresh Kumar Katariya from place E to F and that part of statement of Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12) marked from place G to H was written in own hand writing. He has also admitted that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Baluram (Exhibit P-12) and Janki Lal (Exhibit P-11) were written by him as exactly what was stated by these witnesses and they contained signatures of Shri Suresh Kumar Katariya. This witness also proved police statements of Kaushalya (Exhibit P-20); Saroj (Exhibit P-21) and Shanti (Exhibit P-22) in all of which, he identified signatures of Shri Suresh Kumar Katariya. Recovery memo of pants (Exhibit P-18) indicated that its colour was slaty, which was found burnt on its right leg and there was black mark on it. Pants was sealed and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Recovery memo of pants (Exhibit P-18) indicated that its colour was slaty, which was found burnt on its right leg and there was black mark on it. Pants was sealed and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. No doubt, pants when subjected to examination by FSL, following description and result was given in Exhibit P-31: “DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES Packet Parcels no. Exhibit no Marked by me. Details of exhibit. Number/Extent of blood stains D 1 Blood smeared soil of fersh. Blood smeared. E 2 Control soil of fersh. No blood. F 3 Pant. Blood too small. RESULT OF EXAMINATION Exhibit no. 1 (from Packet Marked ‘D’) is stained with Human blood. The origin of the stains on exhibits noted below could not be determined for the reason stated:- 1. Exhibit no. 3 (from ‘F’) Not sufficient for test. REPORT OF BLOOD GROUP The blood group of the stains on exhibit noted below could not be determined for the reason stated:- 1. Exhibit no. 1 (from ‘D’) Disintegrate Samples from exhibit no. 1 (from ‘D’) and 2 (from ‘E’) have been frowarded to the Physics Division for necessary examination.” 13. Aforesaid report indicates that blood on the pants was not found sufficient to to determine its group. 14. When explanation of the accused-appellant was sought that as to how and in what circumstances he sustained injury on his right leg, the accused-appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he got the injury on the right leg from fawra while he was working in his agricultural field 10-12 days ago. Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Jain (P.W.10) has in the examination in chief proved MLR of the accused (Exhibit P-13) saying that injury no. 1 was in the size of 4x1-1 inch on the anterio lateral aspect lower 1/3 of right leg. Injury no. 2 was ulcer in the size of 1x3/4 inch on the lower pole of the wound present. Colour was dark red. This witness has categorically proved examination in chief that this was a burn injury duration of which was 7-10 days. But in cross-examination he has stated that this injury could have also been caused otherwise and would look like this when infection developed therein. Colour was dark red. This witness has categorically proved examination in chief that this was a burn injury duration of which was 7-10 days. But in cross-examination he has stated that this injury could have also been caused otherwise and would look like this when infection developed therein. This, in our considered view, was given in response to a leading question, but this does not in any manner dilute the assertion of the doctor made in examination in chief that it was a burn injury duration of which was 7-10 days. While the incident in the present case has taken place on 25.09.1985, medical examination of the accused was conducted on 03.10.1985, which is promixate to time and duration indicated in MLR report by the doctor, in which he has categorically stated that injury was caused by flame of fire though was opined to be simple in nature. Had it been for the injury alone, explanation given by the accused could be accepted, but apart from his body, corresponding mark of fire was found on the right leg of pants of the accused, which provides corroboration to the allegation that injury was caused in the same incident of fire in right leg of the appellant. 15. Coming now to contention that provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in the present case because accused-appellant was not alone at home and that other family members were also there, we may in this connection refer to testimony of Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12). He has stated that he had a tailoring shop in village Beri Jatanpura and that he left for shop around 8.00 A.M. His wife was at home as she had delivered a baby only seven days ago. Before he left, his mother Shanti (P.W.18), sister, Saroj (P.W.17) had already left home for agricultural field. Accused appellant came to his shop in a jeep around 11.30 A.M. and told that his wife got burnt. They came together in a jeep to the house. By the time they returned, his sister and mother were already there. He also stated that a steel jug was found in the room, which was Article-1. He stated that room in which Kiran was found burnt was in her possession. They came together in a jeep to the house. By the time they returned, his sister and mother were already there. He also stated that a steel jug was found in the room, which was Article-1. He stated that room in which Kiran was found burnt was in her possession. In cross-examination, he again reiterated that his mother, his sister and appellant himself had left for the agricultural field before this witness went to his shop. He has also stated that when accused-appellant went to call him, he was weeping loudly. 16. Kaushalya (P.W.16) wife of Hanuman Prasad also stated that on the fateful day, he did not prepare food at home and she was sleeping in the room. Her husband had gone to his tailoring shop at Beri. His sister-in-law, Saroj and brother-in-law i.e. accused-appellant had gone to field. Her mother-in-law Shanti also gone to field. She was not aware as to who burnt the deceased Kiran or she caught fire by herself. Even though this witness has tried to state that Kiran had come to her room to borrow kerosene, but she later stated that accused-appellant was not at home when Kiran was burnt, but then further stated that accused-appellant did not come to her room. Relations between Kiran and accused were quite cordial. Accused married Kiran out of her free will. Saroj (P.W.17), sister-in-law of the deceased and sister of the accused-appellant has also stated that on the day of incident, she left the agricultural field early and soon thereafter the accused-appellant also came there. After some time, her mother also came there around 8.00-8.30 A.M. Jugal stayed in the agricultural field for quite some time, but thereafter left for the market and did not come back. Somebody came to the agricultural field and informed that wife of Jugal had got burnt. When they reached home, Kaushalya was crying. Dead body of Kiran was lying in her room in burnt condition. It was around 10.30 A.M. This witness resiled from her own statement given to the police and was declared hostile. 17. Shanti (P.W.18), mother of the accused-appellant has also stated that her daughter went to agricultural field immediately after she got up in the morning and thereafter Jugal also went there. Then around 8.00 A.M. Hanuman went to his shop after taking food. Food was prepared by Kiran. 17. Shanti (P.W.18), mother of the accused-appellant has also stated that her daughter went to agricultural field immediately after she got up in the morning and thereafter Jugal also went there. Then around 8.00 A.M. Hanuman went to his shop after taking food. Food was prepared by Kiran. Kaushalya was in her room because she had delivered a baby 7-8 day ago. This witness herself went to agricultural field. After sometime, Jugal came back to the market. A child had come to them in agricultural field and told that Jugal’s wife had died. She along with her daughter came back home. On the way, Janki Lal Chejara met them, who informed that Jugal’s wife has died due to burns. Even this witness did not support original version given to the police and was declared hostile, but in cross-examination, this witness stated that it must have taken lesser time to the accused to reach market than the time they took to reach home. Jugal stayed in agricultural field for about 1½ hours. Evidence thus clearly suggests that deceased and Jugal had a separate room, apart from the room of Hanuman and his wife Kaushalya. Kaushalya was under rest because she had delivered a baby only 7 days ago so much so when Hanuman went to his shop, his food was prepared by Kiran. The accused-appellant has initially gone to agricultural field. Soon after his sister Saroj went there, he returned back after staying there for about 1½ hours. Though the accused-appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has tried to prove that he had gone to the shop of Mangilal in the market where Gauri Shankar informed him about incident of fire in which his wife died but this evidence is hardly convincing. There was ample opportunity for the accused-appellant to come back home and there was no one else in the home except Kaushalya, who was practically confined to bed because she had delivered baby only 7 days ago. Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the facts of present case could be therefore invoked because no case has been set up by the defence that the room, in which the deceased was staying was visited by any other person and or that it was not in the exclusive possession of the accused-appellant and the deceased. 18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the facts of present case could be therefore invoked because no case has been set up by the defence that the room, in which the deceased was staying was visited by any other person and or that it was not in the exclusive possession of the accused-appellant and the deceased. 18. Now in view of the above medical evidence let us examine the evidence of the witnesses as also the conduct of the accused in the light of his defence stated in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At this juncture it is very relevant to mention that the appellant-accused had submitted a detailed further statement in writing before the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in support of his defence. It is needless to state that the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. could be used by the court so far as it corroborates the dcase of prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ( AIR 2010 SC 2839 ) has reiterated the scope of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. considering the dual purpose and observed in para 23 as under:- “Let us examine the essential features of this section and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments of this Court, which are the guiding factor for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstance appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance there of, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance there of, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. The statement of the accused can be sued to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any, enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly an evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313(4) of the Cr.P.C. explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in as evidence for or against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which, such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use of a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as an evidence is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. In other words, the use of a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as an evidence is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this Section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Another important caution that Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that conviction of the accused can not be based merely on the statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as it can not be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence.” 19. The said position has also been reiterated in case of Sanatan Narkar and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal ( AIR 2010 SC 3570 ). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shankar Lal Gyarsi Lal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1981 SC 765 ) has also held that- “Falsity of defence cannot take place of proof of facts which prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, however, a false plea by defence can be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused.” 20. There are two factors which against the accused-appellant. Firstly that the accused-appellant, as per statements of his mother Shanti (P.W.18), and sister, Saroj (P.W.17), had come back from agricultural field and secondly he also got a fire injury on his right leg, which is corresponding to the burn mark on right leg of his pants. Surjaram (P.W.19) has also stated that accused was arrested in his presence and at that time, there was a black burn mark on one of his legs. Learned trial court has also rightly discarded explanation given by the accused-appellants in this regard because he could not prove as to whether any treatment was undertaken by him for such injury. Explanation that he has given for this injury could not be even probablised. Learned trial court has also rightly discarded explanation given by the accused-appellants in this regard because he could not prove as to whether any treatment was undertaken by him for such injury. Explanation that he has given for this injury could not be even probablised. Contention that the accused-appellant would have tried to remove the rope (‘nada’) rather than leaving it does not in any manner improve his case because admittedly the deceased did not die of fire injury, but it was a death brought about by asphyxia and she was strangulated by use of rope (‘nada’, a rope for tying salwar or payjama). When the accused put the dead body of the deceased on fire by pouring kerosene over her body, he would have never thought that rope tied around her neck would be only half burnt and half of that rope would remain unburnt. Therefore, the argument that this would be contrary to human conduct, hardly impress. In fact conduct of the accused-appellant was somewhat unnatural and Rajesh Beniwal (P.W.20), S.H.O., who reached the place of incident immediately thereafter and drew proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. stated that accused was not found present at home. 21. In view of above discussion, learned trial court, in our considered view, has rightly found incriminating circumstances against the accused-appellant which form a complete chain so as to unerringly point towards his guilt that it is the accused-appellant and none else who could have committed murder of his own wife. Contention that Kaushalya engaged the accused-appellant with her younger sister and he broke the engagement and then performed love marriage with the deceased would be wholly inconsequential to the facts of the present case. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Judgment and order dated 08.07.1988 passed by the trial court is affirmed. Accused-appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out his remaining sentence.