JUDGMENT S.PANDA, J. - This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Sessions Trial Case No. 96/23/150 of 1997/1996 in convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(g) and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years each under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Appellant No. 2- Babula @ Ashok Mallick @ Ashok Kumar Samantaray has expired in the meantime. Thus, the present appeal is confined to Appellant No.1 – Giridhari Parida only. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Namita Mohapatra was residing in her house situated at village Telipatna with her brother i.e. the Niranjan Mohapatra (C.W.1) and her mother Pramodini Mohapatra. One of the rooms of their house was given on rent to Dillip Kumar Pani (P.W.2) who was running a T.V. repairing shop in that room. It is alleged that on 19.9.1995, the mother of the deceased had been to her daughter’s house at Odagaon. Niranjan Mohapatra (C.W.1) and the deceased were in their house. In that night a feast was arranged in the house of the deceased Namita by her brother Niranjan Mohapatra. The appellants Babula @ Ashok Mallik @ Ashok Kumar Samantray, Giria @ Giridhari Parida were invitees. P.W.2 was also invited to that feast. The appellants Ashok Samantray and Giridhari Parida took liquor and at their instance C.W. 1 also took liquor. P.W.2 also took a little quantity of liquor in their company. One Rajkishore Rana was also present in the feast during the relevant time and took liquor heavily for which he slept in the house being unable to take care of himself. Thereafter, appellants Ashok Samantary and Giridhari Parida took the said Rajkishore Rana to his house and left him there. The deceased prepared rice and the appellant Giridhari cooked the chicken. At about 10.30 P.M. the food was served and when they were sitting to take the food, the appellant Ashok Samantray all of a sudden assaulted P.W.2 for which he fled away from that place out of fear. The deceased prepared rice and the appellant Giridhari cooked the chicken. At about 10.30 P.M. the food was served and when they were sitting to take the food, the appellant Ashok Samantray all of a sudden assaulted P.W.2 for which he fled away from that place out of fear. Appellants Ashok Samantray and Giridhari Parida chased P.W. 2 up to his house and enquired about him from his mother and threatened him to do away with his life. Thereafter, they took the food and left the house. At about mid night between 12 to 12.30 AM, the appellants again came to the house of the C.W.1 and appellant No. 2 compelled C.W.1 to drink liquor further to which he protested and his sister Namita also protested. Thereafter, appellant No. 2 caught hold of the deceased while appellant No. 1 caught hold of C.W.1 and poured liquor in his mouth. The appellant no. 2 forcibly committed rape on the deceased at the sight of C.W.1 when appellant No. 1 had caught hold of him and thereafter appellant no. 1 committed rape on Namita when appellant no. 2 caught hold of him. As C.W.1 was restrained by the accused persons he could not rescue his sister Namita. Thereafter the appellants committed murder of the deceased after committing rape. On the next day morning, all the accused persons cremated the dead body of Namita in the bari of C.W.1, which was detected by Gramarakshi Gunanidhi Naik (P.W.1). The said Gramarakshi reported the matter at the police station in writing, basing on which U.D. case was registered. During enquiry of that U.D. Case, the then O.I.C. of Ranpur P.S. Mahendra Gumansingh visited the spot, held inquest over the un burnt pieces of flesh having in a charred condition and seized some burnt pieces of bones, ashes and charcoal. The post-mortem examination over the dead body was conducted. On the same day, a number of empty beer, and whisky bottles of different brands were seized from the house of C.W.1 and a letter Alleged to have been written by the deceased to P.W. 2 was also seized from his house. Subsequently, the C.I. of Police Sarankul Circle took charge of the investigation of the case and accordingly the statements of P.Ws. Subsequently, the C.I. of Police Sarankul Circle took charge of the investigation of the case and accordingly the statements of P.Ws. 2, 5 and 6 were recorded under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. The confessional statement of C.W.1 was also recorded by J.M.F.C., Ranpur, the appellants were sent for medical examination. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 376 (2)(g), 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. 3. The plea of the appellants was one of complete denial of the occurrence. 4. In order to bring home the charge, during trial the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to Ext. 26/2. The prosecution proved nine material objects, which have been marked as M.O.I. to M.O.IX. On the other hand, the defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. One witness namely Niranjan Mohapatra was examined on behalf of the Court as Court Witness No. 1. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the materials available on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) and 302/34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. It also held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 201/34 IPC. Accordingly the Court below sentenced the present appellants to undergo RI for 10 years each for the offence under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC and to undergo R.I. for life for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. C.W.1-Niranjan Mohapatra was tendered pardon by the Court below. All other co-accused persons, namely Banambar Parida, Dharam @ Dharama Bhotra and Ninanjan Mohapatra (C.W.1) were set at liberty. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are against the weight of evidence on record and contrary to law. The Court below relying upon the statement of the approver, which has been recorded after three years of the occurrence, came to such a finding. According to him after conclusion of the trial arguments were heard on 12.10.1998 and the case was adjourned to 23.10.1998 for judgment. The Court below relying upon the statement of the approver, which has been recorded after three years of the occurrence, came to such a finding. According to him after conclusion of the trial arguments were heard on 12.10.1998 and the case was adjourned to 23.10.1998 for judgment. However on the said date, the Court below resorting to the provisions of Section 307 Cr.P.C. tendered pardon to the accomplice Niranjan Mohapatra (C.W.1) whose statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation and treated him as Court Witness. Therefore, according to him, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable and liable to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Standing counsel submitted that the evidence of the Court Witness, who is the eye witness to the occurrence is specific about the overt act performed by the appellants. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and his disclosure before P.W.6 and the statement of P.W.2 who was also present in the feast reveals about the presence of the appellants at the spot and their overt act for destroying the evidence. The circumstances pointed the guilt of the appellants. The said fact was also corroborated with the medical evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrant to interference in this appeal. This criminal appeal. Therefore, being devoid of merit liable to be dismissed. 8. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. Niranjan Mahapatra, the brother of the deceased whose statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 11.10.1995 reveals that on 19.09.1995 the appellants compelled him to give a feast. One Dilip Pani, P.W. 2, was also attended the feast, who was running a watch repairing and T.V. repairing shop taking the room of Niranjan Mahapatra on rent. During the feast they also consumed liquor followed by quarrel between P.W. 2 and Appellant No. 2. After the feast was over he along with his deceased sister went to sleep. While sleeping the present appellants again came to his house between 12.00 to 12.30 A.M. Appellant no. 2 compelled him to drink further, to which his sister protested. The appellants were in drunken stage and they did not listen to the protest of his sister. Thereafter they poured liquor in his mouth and caught hold of him. While sleeping the present appellants again came to his house between 12.00 to 12.30 A.M. Appellant no. 2 compelled him to drink further, to which his sister protested. The appellants were in drunken stage and they did not listen to the protest of his sister. Thereafter they poured liquor in his mouth and caught hold of him. Thereafter one after another while caught hold of him committed rape of her sister in his presence and at that time, her sister could not speak anything. They thereafter killed her sister and hanged the dead body on the cudy of the thatch house. The appellants further threatened him saying that if he (C.W.1) discloses to anybody or police, they will do away with his life and also life of his mother. However C.W.1 told the appellants and he will tell his Dada (P.W.6) about the death of her sister on the last night and accordingly the appellants went with C.W.1 to the house of his Dada. P.W. 6 on seeing the dead body and scattered articles suspected the death and refused to cremate the same without intimation to the police. To this objection, appellant no. 2 threatened his Dada with a broken liquor bottle for which the villagers left that place. After the villagers left the place, the appellants by using firewood, kerosene and cycle tyre burnt the dead body. Subsequently he became the Court witness by the Court resorting to the provisions of Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. With regard to his evidence under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 11.10.1995, he has explained that the appellants have threatened to kill him and his mother for which he has not disclosed earlier. However, he has disclosed it to P.W.6, who has insisted him to inform the fact to the police. However he could not inform the police out of fear to his life and his mother. P.W.6, whose statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.09.1995, had deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 20.09.1995 in the early morning, C.W.1 went to his house and told that his sister had committed suicide in the last night. When he asked the cause of death, C.W.1 had told that he, along with the appellants and some others had a feast in the last night in his house. When he asked the cause of death, C.W.1 had told that he, along with the appellants and some others had a feast in the last night in his house. After the feast was over and they left his house, thereafter he found his sister had committed suicide by hanging. He had further stated that when he went inside the house, he saw tooth bite on the cheek of the deceased and the articles were lying scattered. He saw both the appellants standing there near a pillar. Appellant No. 2 dragged him to the house and forced him to cremate the dead body. He also found a cloth in the mouth of the deceased. 9. P.W.11, the Doctor had deposed when the police brought a portion of half charred dead body for examination, he advised them to take the same to SCB Medical College & Hospital Cuttack of F.M.T. Department for examination. Accordingly Post-mortem was conducted under the guidance of Professor F.M.T. by a team of doctors, wherein he was a member. According to them the mode of death appears to be asphyxia. 10. According to Modi’s text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology:- Circumstantial evidence also has an important bearing. Homicidal hanging, though rare, has been recorded that usually, more than one person is involved in the act unless the victim is a child or very weak and feeble, or is rendered unconscious by some intoxicating or narcotic drug. In a case, where resistance has been offered, marks of violence on the body and marks of a struggle or footprints of several persons at or near the place of occurrence are likely to be found. In the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1957 SC 637, it has held that it would normally not be open to the appellants to raise question of fact before the Supreme Court. Where the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are based on concurrent findings of fact, the Court would be slow to interfere with such findings unless they are satisfied that the said findings are vitiated by errors of law or that the conclusions reached by the Courts below are so patently opposed to well established principle of judicial approach, that they can be characterized as wholly unjustified and even perverse. Courts are naturally reluctant to act on the tainted evidence of an approver unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. But it would not be right to expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. In the present case, the statement recorded by P.W.6 corroborates with the statement of the approver C.W.1. That apart the statement of the C.W.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation also corroborated with the statement recorded as Court witness. 11. As discussed in the above paragraphs and on close scrutiny of the evidences on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court on a threadbare discussion has convicted the accused persons and passed the sentence. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of suicide has no substance. In such background, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed so far as appellant No. 1- Giridhari Parida is concerned. The Criminal Appeals stands dismissed according. Appeal dismissed.