Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 156 (ALL)

PANNAL LAL v. STATE

2018-01-18

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Amicus Curiae and learned A.G.A. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 612 of 2001 (State vs. Panna Lal) convicting the appellant Panna Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 7000/- as also under Section 328 I.P.C. and sentenced for 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000/-. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the informant Maan Singh son of Gajram Singh resident of Durgesh Nagar, Double Phatak, Moradabad informed the police at the Police Station Katghar by moving a written report on 30.5.2001 that the appellant Panna Lal was occupying one room at the third floor of his house as tenant since 22.5.2001 and he was residing therein alongwith his wife and children. The said room was locked from outside and some bad smell was coming from the room. He had requested the police authorities to accompany him to the place to find out the reason. 4. On the said information, the police team of P.S. Katghar reached the spot and found the room occupied by the appellant as tenant, locked from outside and bad smell was coming from the room. In the presence of the witnesses and the owner of the house namely the informant Maan Singh, the lock was broken and they found four dead bodies of wife and three children of the appellant lying on the floor. The recovery memo was prepared. The inquest reports of all four dead bodies were prepared and postmortem was conducted. Apart from other articles, on 31.5.2001, a diary allegedly written by the appellant Panna Lal was recovered from the scene of the incident in the presence of the witnesses and a recovery memo was prepared. The household articles and personal belongings of the deceased were handed over to one relative after the recovery memo was prepared. Apart from other articles, on 31.5.2001, a diary allegedly written by the appellant Panna Lal was recovered from the scene of the incident in the presence of the witnesses and a recovery memo was prepared. The household articles and personal belongings of the deceased were handed over to one relative after the recovery memo was prepared. During the investigation, one Raju Kashyap son of Sumer Singh resident of village and P.S. Bahjoee at present resident of Durgesh Nagar, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad submitted a written information to the Inspector of Police Station Katghar stating therein that his maternal uncle (Panna Lal) came to him in the afternoon of 31.5.2001 and told that he had caused death of his wife Smt. Poonam who was having illicit relationship with Raju and also eliminated all three daughters who were born out of the said relationship. It was told by the appellant who was having a capsule in his hand and that Raju Kashyap would also be subjected to the same treatment. 5. During the investigation, the site plan of the scene of occurrence was prepared. The appellant was arrested on 7.6.2001. The police moved an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad with the prayer that the appellant be summoned from jail and his specimen handwriting be obtained to compare the same from the writing in the diary which had been recovered from the scene of the incident. The appellant was summoned from jail and on production of diary before him, in front of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad he had admitted his handwriting. As a result of it, the application moved by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) with the request for comparison of handwriting was rejected. On the endorsement of admission of the appellant, his thumb impression was obtained. Visceras of the dead bodies were preserved by the doctor at the time of autopsy and were sent for chemical examination to the Vidhi Vigyan Proyogshala, U.P. Agra. As per the chemical report, Aluminum Phosphide poison was found. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for murder of his wife and three daughters. He denied the charges and was committed to trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Maan Singh-the informant; P.W.-2 Murari Singh-a neighbour; P.W.-3 Raju Kashyap-nephew of the appellant; P.W.-4 Dr. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for murder of his wife and three daughters. He denied the charges and was committed to trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Maan Singh-the informant; P.W.-2 Murari Singh-a neighbour; P.W.-3 Raju Kashyap-nephew of the appellant; P.W.-4 Dr. Mahendra Singh who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies and P.W.-5 the Inspector who had investigated the case. P.W.-1 Maan Singh stated that he was residing at the ground floor of the house wherein one room at the third floor was occupied on rent by Panna Lal the appellant since 22.5.2001. The appellant was residing therein alongwith his wife and three daughters. In the intervening night of 27/28.5.2001, the appellant and his family members were present in the room. In the morning of 28.5.2001, the appellant Panna Lal had told the informant that his wife had gone somewhere and did not return. The appellant also told the informant that he was going to search his wife alongwith three daughters. In the night of 28.5.2001, Panna Lal returned with his three daughters and again on the next morning i.e. of 29.5.2001, he left alongwith his three daughters to make a search for his wife. Panna Lal told the informant that his wife could not be traced when he came back in the evening of 29.5.2001 alongwith his three daughters. On 30.5.2001, the room was found locked and bad smell was percolating out, resultantly the informant went to the police station. P.W.-2 Murari Singh, who was residing in another room of the same house also stated that Pannal Lal came back to his room on 29.5.2001 with his three daughters but he was not found in the morning and the room was locked from outside wherefrom a bad smell was coming out. Raju Kashyap P.W.-3 nephew of the appellant gave an information of confession made by the appellant before him of causing murder of his wife and three daughters and threatening him with dire consequences. The doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies gave a statement that death of Smt. Poonam wife of the appellant was possibly occurred in the intervening night of 27/28.5.2001 i.e. 3-4 days back of the postmortem. The doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies gave a statement that death of Smt. Poonam wife of the appellant was possibly occurred in the intervening night of 27/28.5.2001 i.e. 3-4 days back of the postmortem. As per the condition of her dead body, rigor mortis was passed off and sign of decomposition was present on 31.5.2001 at about 11.40 a.m. when autopsy was conducted. No injury was found on the body. Both the lungs of deceased were congested. Both the chambers of heart were found empty. Liver was congested and decomposition had started. The cause of death could not be known and, therefore, viscera was preserved. Same doctor had conducted autopsy of three dead bodies of children i.e. of Km. Kanchan aged about 6 years, Km. Shital aged about 4 years and Km. Naina aged about 2 years on the same day i.e. 31.5.2001 and gave reports that death of the children was possibly occurred in the intervening night of 28/29.5.2001 i.e. one day prior to the autopsy. 7. The Investigating Officer had submitted a report confirming that the appellant was tenant in the room which was found locked from inside and wherefrom four dead bodies of wife and three daughters of the appellant were recovered. He had proved the inquest report and that Raju Kashyap P.W.-3 reached to him and handed over a written report on 31.5.2001. He proved that visceras of all four deceased were sent for chemical examination and the reports were received and copied by him in the case diary. 8. The genuineness of all the papers of the prosecution was admitted by the counsel for the appellant. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all offences and circumstances which were put to him and stated that he was falsely implicated in the crime. At the time of recovery of the dead bodies of his wife and three daughters he was not present in the room and as such was not aware as to what had happened with them. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidences in his defence. 9. Thus in the aforesaid background, where no direct evidence came forward, the present case became a case of circumstantial evidence. 10. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidences in his defence. 9. Thus in the aforesaid background, where no direct evidence came forward, the present case became a case of circumstantial evidence. 10. It has been consistently laid down by the Courts that where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incapable with the innocence of the accused or prove the guilt of the person concerned. The circumstances from which inference as to guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 11. In Bhagat Ram Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621 , it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt. 12. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :- (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra 1982 2 SCC 351 ). 13. In State Of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 AIR 840, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra 1982 2 SCC 351 ). 13. In State Of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 AIR 840, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 14. In Madhu vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) SCC 399 , It was held that the circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated with great circumspection. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 15. The same principle was reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 (11) SCC 178 . 16. Thus, during the course of deliberation on the circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to evaluate the worthiness of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 17. In the instant case, the prosecution relied upon the following incriminating circumstances: (i) The accused appellant was resident of room from which the dead bodies of his wife and three daughters were found by the police after breaking the lock on the information given by Maan Singh, the owner of the house. (ii) Panna Lal was seen with his three daughters on 28.5.2001 and 29.5.2001 when he reported his wife being missing to Maan Singh the informant (owner of the house). (iii) He was last seen on 29.5.2001 by Maan Singh, the owner of the house when he came back in the evening to his room alongwith his three daughters. In the next morning of 30.5.2001, the room was found locked from outside. Panna Lal was missing and dead bodies of his wife and three daughters were recovered from inside after breaking the lock. In the next morning of 30.5.2001, the room was found locked from outside. Panna Lal was missing and dead bodies of his wife and three daughters were recovered from inside after breaking the lock. (iv) When these circumstances were put to Panna Lal during the course of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he did not offer any explanation much less satisfactory explanation as to where had he gone and how the dead bodies of his wife and three daughters (to whom he was accompanying till 29.5.2001) were found in the room occupied by him alongwith his family. 18. The case of the prosecution is that the above circumstances in addition to the confession of the appellant before P.W.-3 his nephew was sufficient to implicate his guilt as they form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. As three daughters were last seen in the company of the appellant/accused on 29.5.2001 when he was entering his room, the theory of "last seen alive" comes into play when the time gap between the period when the appellant and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased were found dead was so small that the possibility of any other person committing the murder becomes impossible. 19. Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Amicus Curiae, however, defending the appellant submits that the chain of circumstances are not complete so as to lead to the guilt of the appellant. The extra judicial confession of the appellant before his nephew was taken as a circumstantial evidence by the trial court by reading it at its face value. No credence can be attached to the said witness who was closely related to the appellant in view of statement of the appellant of having enmity with the said witness. The room was found locked from outside but no lock is mentioned in the recovery memo. There is no mention of any lock in the inquest report too. Having been bolted and locked from outside and there being other tenants in the premises, room was having free access to any and everybody residing out there or anyone who could have visited the family on the ill-fated night. The mother of the appellant was not investigated. There is no mention of any lock in the inquest report too. Having been bolted and locked from outside and there being other tenants in the premises, room was having free access to any and everybody residing out there or anyone who could have visited the family on the ill-fated night. The mother of the appellant was not investigated. The theory of "last seen" would not be attracted inasmuch as no one had seen the appellant with his wife and three daughters inside the room in the intervening night of 29/30.5.2001 i.e. the night when murder allegedly had occurred. The case of the prosecution is full of exaggeration and nothing but a story concocted by it, by creating a circumstance of recovery of one diary from the seen of incident after one day i.e. 31.5.2001 of recovery of bodies, containing narration of the whole incident in the hand writing of the accused/appellant. The appellant had categorically denied having written the diary in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The writing of the accused was sought to the proved on the alleged admission made by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein endorsement of admission was not in the signature of the accused rather he put his thumb impression. There was complete absence of motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of his own wife and three daughters. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first theory which is coming up in the chain of circumstances is the theory of "last seen alive" when the accused and his three deceased daughters were seen together by Maan Singh the informant who made a statement that they all went together inside the room in the evening of 29.5.2001. It is to be noted that no one had seen the accused leaving the room after he was last seen with his daughters going inside the room. The time when they were seen together and the time when they were found dead is so proximate which, in our view, points to the guilt of the appellant. The appellant was the person who could have explained the circumstances in which he had parted with the company of his three daughters. The time when they were seen together and the time when they were found dead is so proximate which, in our view, points to the guilt of the appellant. The appellant was the person who could have explained the circumstances in which he had parted with the company of his three daughters. It was for the appellant to explain as to where he had gone when he had left his family in the night of 29.5.2001 and as to who had locked the room from outside. The appellant Panna Lal failed to offer any explanation, it must be held as such that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 21. In Bodh Raj @ Bodha vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2002 (8) SCC 45 , the Apex Court has laid down that the "last seen theory" comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. Otherwise when there is a long gap and possibility of other person coming in between exists, it would be difficult in those cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused. In such cases, in absence of any other positive evidence, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt on the ground of the accused and the deceased seen last together. See also State of U.P. vs. Satish, 2005 (3) SCC 114 and State Of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, 2006 (12) SCC 254 . 22. In State Of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (supra), the Apex Court has held that the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. The circumstances which must appear to be probable and satisfactory have to be explained by him to discharge his burden. 23. Relevant paragraph 23 of the above pronouncement is reproduced as under :- "23. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. The circumstances which must appear to be probable and satisfactory have to be explained by him to discharge his burden. 23. Relevant paragraph 23 of the above pronouncement is reproduced as under :- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218." 24. See also State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2988 , Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, 2010 (12) SCC 310 and Neel Kumar alias Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012 (5) SCC 766 . 25. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218." 24. See also State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2988 , Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, 2010 (12) SCC 310 and Neel Kumar alias Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012 (5) SCC 766 . 25. Insofar as the extra-judicial confession of the appellant before his nephew P.W.-3 is concerned, there cannot be a quarrel to the proposition that an extra-judicial confession by its very nature is a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. 26. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram, 2003 (8) SCC 180 had stated the principles as follows:- "19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility." 27. In Aloke Nath Dutta and others vs. State of West Bengal, 2007 (12) SCC 230 the Apex Court has held that an extra-judicial confession relied by the lower courts in absence of other corroborating material was unjustified. 28. However, accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Apex Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (10) SCC 604 has held that there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. 29. In Munna Kumar Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyaya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, 2012 (6) SCC 174 , the principles relating to admissibility of extra-judicial confession have been laid down as follows:- 63. extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. [Ref. Sk. Yusuf vs. State of W.B. [ (2011) 11 SCC 754 ] and Pancho vs. State of Haryana [ (2011) 10 SCC 165 ]. 30. Taking into consideration the abovenoted legal position and the circumstances which have come up on record, the case of the prosecution in its entirety, the circumstance preceding and following the points of having "last seen" of the appellant and his three daughters, in our view, the statement of P.W.-3 is a strong incriminating circumstance in the chain of circumstances that would point to the guilt of the appellant with some certainty. It is not disputed before us that the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant while his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Except for a vague denial, he had stated nothing more. It is not disputed before us that the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant while his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Except for a vague denial, he had stated nothing more. Even in response to a question relating recovery of four bodies from inside the room wherein he was residing as tenant, the appellant did not speak rather he opted to make a bald denial. To a question regarding extra-judicial confession made by him to P.W.-3 Raju Kashyap his nephew, again a bald denial was made by the appellant and only it was stated that P.W.-3 made such statement out of enmity. The reason for making such statement or nature of enmity of P.W.-3 with the appellant was not explained. 31. Above all, the appellant did not explain the circumstances which had lead to death of four persons, his wife and three daughters to whom he accompanied before leaving the place of his residence. There was no suggestion of the appellant that anyone else could have committed the crime. Special circumstances were within his knowledge. It was impossible for the prosecution to establish as to what had happened in the house of the appellant in the intervening night of 29/30.5.2001. 32. As far as the object of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is dual i.e. firstly to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denial to establish facts as incriminating evidence against him. 33. In Asraf Ali vs. State of Assam, 2008 (16) SCC 328 , explaining the object of statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, the Apex Court has laid down as follows:- 21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced. 22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. 22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. The State ( AIR 1976 SC 2140 ), while dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non- indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facets by the trial Court to the accused adds to vulnerability of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise. 34. In a recent judgment in Manu Sao (supra), the same view has been reiterated in paragraphs 12 to 14 as under:- "12. Let us examine the essential features of this Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Code. 13. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also to 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 thereof 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 thereof 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 to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence 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. 14. The statement of the accused can be used 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 evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313 (4) explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put as evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tempt to show he has committed. In other words, the use 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." 35. 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." 35. Thus when the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court can draw an adverse inference against him. 36. Besides all the circumstantial evidences as noted above, another very significant aspect of the case is the motive of the appellant. It is true that in this case, the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive satisfactorily. It is also true that where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes greater importance but it cannot be said that in such cases where the prosecution is unable to prove the motive satisfactorily, the prosecution must fail. Mere fact that if the prosecution has failed to translate the mental disposition of the accused into evidence that does not by itself mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the accused at the time of commission of crime. See Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal (supra), Vivek Kalra vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (12) SCC 439 and Ujjagar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (13) SCC 90 . 37. In the instant case, a suggestion has come from the statement of P.W.-3 Raju Kashyap that the appellant was having suspicion of illicit relationship of his wife with P.W.-3 who happened to be his nephew. He had also a suspicion of three daughters having been born out of the said illicit relationship. At no point of time, the accused gave any suggestion or disclosed any circumstance which would have mitigated the motive which was coming in the chain of circumstances as a link leading to the pointing of guilt of the appellant. 38. Lastly, the defence of the appellant was alibi. The burden was thus upon him to prove it under Section 103 of the Evidence Act. The defence did not adduce any evidence to prove the alibi nor has explained any circumstances which would result in breaking of the chain. The medical evidence i.e. the report of autopsy prove that wife of the appellant had died approximately five days prior to 31.5.2001. The defence did not adduce any evidence to prove the alibi nor has explained any circumstances which would result in breaking of the chain. The medical evidence i.e. the report of autopsy prove that wife of the appellant had died approximately five days prior to 31.5.2001. When autopsy was done, Rigor mortis was passed off and sign of deposition were present on the dead body of Smt. Poonam wife of the appellant. Whereas bodies of his three daughters were not in the same condition. As per the medical evidence, they died one day prior to the recovery of their bodies from the same room. Difference of approximate three days between the death of wife and three daughters of the appellant also supports the prosecution story of the accused having been seen last together with his three daughters by the informant. The appellant has failed to discharge the onus and failed to offer any explanation as to how, as to when and in what manner he parted company of his three daughters, is a strong militating circumstance against the appellant. Having regard to the time gap being small, it was for the appellant to explain the circumstances in which he parted company with his wife and children. 39. Taking into consideration of all the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish all incriminating circumstances against the accused who has not only failed to explain his conduct in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain but had even given incorrect and false answers. 40. In the present circumstances, the Court not only draws an adverse inference, but such conduct of the accused would also tilt the case in favour of the prosecution. 41. For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. There is no merit in the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 42. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.