JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Appellant herein is convict (hereinafter to be referred as ‘accused’). He has been tried for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian penal Code, however, convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the commission of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC alone vide judgment dated 27.1.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions trial No. 51-N/7 of 2015. 2. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the convict-appellant has preferred the present appeal for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the same is against the law and facts of the case. He had no intention to kill his son deceased Himanshu. He was not seen by anyone while throwing his son in Kulhal canal. The circumstantial evidence produced against him no where suggest that it is he who has thrown his son Himanshu in the canal. The chain of the evidence led against him is not complete so as to clinch that it is he alone and none else had eliminated deceased Himanshu. The trial Court was not justified to make basis the statement he made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while recording his findings of conviction and sentence. His version in the statement does not absolve the prosecution from the onus upon it to prove him guilty beyond all reasonable doubts. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, none else but closely related hence interested one, has been erroneously relied upon to record the findings of conviction against him. The person like PW15 Parvinder Singh is a liar because his statement that he noticed the accused driving the motor cycle with his child as pillion rider at a time while buying some articles from S.K. General Store and that when returned the child was not on the motor cycle is absolutely false. PW15 according to the accused is a stock witness, hence deposed falsely. Near Yamuna bridge, only dhabas and tea-stalls are situated and not any general store. PW16 Ram Dass admit that there exists path adjoining Kulhal canal being used by the people to have access to village Khara and Baba Bhure Shah Mandir. PW15 according to the accused is a stock witness, hence deposed falsely. Near Yamuna bridge, only dhabas and tea-stalls are situated and not any general store. PW16 Ram Dass admit that there exists path adjoining Kulhal canal being used by the people to have access to village Khara and Baba Bhure Shah Mandir. Therefore, in a broad day light i.e. around 11:30 A.M. or 12.00 noon how a grown up child could have been thrown in the canal. Otherwise also, a person thrown in canal would raise hue and cry, however, no such evidence has been produced. Therefore, PW16 has also made a false statement. 3. Complainant in this case is Reena Devi (PW1). She is wife of accused. They married each other on 7.5.2000. Two sons namely Deepak and Himanshu (deceased) were born to them out of this wedlock. Since the accused was suspecting extra marital relations of the complainant with someone else and was also of the belief that both sons were not born to her from his loins and rather from the loins of the person with whom she was having extra marital relations, he had no liking for both children. He also used to torture the complainant on this pretext. She was given merciless beating by him in the year 2010. She, therefore, left the matrimonial home with her sons and started living in the house of her parents. It is in the year 2013 the accused compromised all disputes with her and assured that he will not torture her any further. On the assurance so given by him she returned to the matrimonial home and they again started living together with children. After some time he again started torturing her at the same pretext. She had been managing her stay in the matrimonial home anyhow or other. 4. On 30th May 2015 the accused asked her to accompany him along with Himanshu to Paonta Sahib for preparing Adhaar cards. They went to Paonta Sahib with accused on motor cycle. There the accused filled-in her form and also form of Himanshu and handed over the same to the complainant. She was asked to stand in queue and deposit the forms in SDM office and himself went to market to purchase computer. Master Himanshu was also taken by him on motor cycle with him. There the accused filled-in her form and also form of Himanshu and handed over the same to the complainant. She was asked to stand in queue and deposit the forms in SDM office and himself went to market to purchase computer. Master Himanshu was also taken by him on motor cycle with him. When the accused and deceased Himanshu did not come back for one and half hours, she made a call on his cell phone through the cell phone of Kamla PW2 who was also standing in queue with her. The accused, however, did not pick up the call. When after one and half hours he returned alone she inquired about Himanshu as to where was he. The accused replied that Himanshu had alighted from the motor cycle at Nirmal Sweet shop. He asked the complainant to search Himanshu at the place of her parents. The missing report Ext.PW1/A lodged by the complainant reveals that she and her husband the accused both searched master Himanshu in the market near and around Paonta Sahib but of no avail. It is thereafter she decided to report the matter to the police. 5. The report Ext.PW1/A was lodged in the police station on 30.5.2015 itself. The police swung into action. Efforts were made with the assistance of the complainant and other relatives of Himanshu to search him out but of no avail. On the next day i.e. 31.5.2015 in the evening when statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she disclosed about her strained relations with the accused at the pretext of the latter was suspecting her chastity and paternity of both sons. She also expressed her doubt that due to such suspicion it is he alone who either has done away with minor Himanshu or concealed him somewhere. Shri Fateh Singh (Former MLA) father of accused was also associated on that very day in the investigation of the case. He also disclosed about the strained relations of the complainant and the accused on account of the latter doubting the chastity of the former and her extra marital relations with someone else. He has further disclosed to the police that the accused was even of the impression that two sons have not been born to the complainant from his loins and rather from that of the person with home she was having extra marital relations. He has further disclosed to the police that the accused was even of the impression that two sons have not been born to the complainant from his loins and rather from that of the person with home she was having extra marital relations. Therefore, Fateh Singh aforesaid has also suspected that Master Himanshu was either eliminated by the accused or hided at some place. The statement of PW15 Parvinder Singh recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that while crossing through S.K. General Store near Yamuna bridge a child was sitting on the motor cycle being driven by the accused as pillion rider, however, when returned the child was not with him has also given a clue to the investigating agency that there is hand of the accused in the commission of some non-bailable offence connected with the incident of missing of Master Himanshu. 6. The accused was, therefore, taken in custody on 31.5.2015 itself. When interrogated in custody, the accused allegedly made the disclosure statement Ext.PW16/A in the presence of witnesses that he can show the place where he pushed Himanshu in canal. The statement so made was reduced into writing. Accordingly the police and witnesses had rushed to Kulhal barrier and identified the place where he pushed his son Himanshu into canal. The identification memo of that place Ext.PW16/B was accordingly prepared in the presence of witnesses. During further course of investigation the spot map etc. was also prepared. The motor cycle bearing No. HP-17B- 4035 of the accused handed over to the police by his brother Sumer Chand was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW11/A. 7. On 12.6.2015 in the morning PW4 Jagbir Singh a JCB Operator noticed the dead body of a child floating in Kulhal canal. He informed the official of CISF Unit deployed there on security duty. The intimation was further passed on by CISF official to Mirjapur police and police of Paonta Sahib. The police in turn had passed on such information to PW17 Surjeet Singh and Sumer Chand, the uncles of Himanshu. They accompanied by the police went to the spot near Khara project and identified the body of their nephew Himanshu. The autopsy was got conducted from the team of Doctors comprising PW10 Dr. Kamal Pasha. Since the dead body was in badly decomposed condition, therefore, referred to IGMC Shimla for conducting autopsy by the expert. They accompanied by the police went to the spot near Khara project and identified the body of their nephew Himanshu. The autopsy was got conducted from the team of Doctors comprising PW10 Dr. Kamal Pasha. Since the dead body was in badly decomposed condition, therefore, referred to IGMC Shimla for conducting autopsy by the expert. In IGMC it is Dr. Sangeet Dhillon PW21 who has conducted the autopsy and the cause of death of deceased was found drowning and throwing him in water. 8. On collecting the post mortem reports and also the report from State Forensic Science Laboratory as well as completion of the investigation the police has found the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. Therefore, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against him in the trial Court. 9. Learned trial Judge on having gone through the evidence collected by the police and hearing learned counsel and recording its satisfaction qua the existence of a prima-facie case against the accused proceeded to frame charge against him under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. As noticed at the outset, the present is a case of circumstantial evidence. Anyhow, the material prosecution witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution to prove the circumstances suggesting the guilty of the accused are PW1 Reena Devi the complainant, PW2 Kamla Devi, PW3 Fateh Singh father of the accused, PW6 Vishal brother of PW1, PW16 Ram Dass father of the complainant, PW17 Surjeet Singh elder brother of accused, PW18 Gurmeet Singh and PW15 Parvinder Singh also. The other witnesses including officials have also been examined to complete the chain of circumstances so relied upon against the accused. 11. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence put to him during such examination. Interestingly enough, he has not denied his marriage with the complainant and two sons born to her. Though the prosecution evidence that he was suspecting her extra marital relations with someone else and also raising finger on the paternity of two sons were denied, however, admitted that on one occasion the complainant abandoned his company and left the matrimonial home also. Though the prosecution evidence that he was suspecting her extra marital relations with someone else and also raising finger on the paternity of two sons were denied, however, admitted that on one occasion the complainant abandoned his company and left the matrimonial home also. She was brought back by him on the assurance that he will not torture her any further in future. 12. The accused also admit that on 30.5.2015 he had taken the complainant and deceased Himanshu to Paonta for preparing their Adhaar cards. He also admits that he went to the market for purchasing a computer and had taken HImanshu also with him. It was also put to him that when he returned Himanshu was not with him which fact he also admit as correct. However, when the disclosure statement Ext.PW16/A was put to him though he admit that he made the statement to the police, however, not to the effect that he pushed Himanshu into canal and explained that Himanshu rather slipped away into canal at his own. In reply to question No. 14 he admit that on being asked by PW1 as to where Himanshu was, he told that Himanshu alighted from the motor cycle at Nirmal Sweet shop. He also admitted that when returned on motor cycle PW15 noticed that Himanshu, a pillion rider was not with him at that time. 13. The accused was given an opportunity to produce evidence in his defence also, however, he opted for not to do so. 14. Learned trial Court on the completion of the record and hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as defence Counsel and on appreciation of the evidence available on record has held the accused guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, he has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- as fine. No case under Section 364 IPC, however, was found to be made out against him, hence acquitted of the charge so framed against him. 15. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate has argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence. Again there is no tangible evidence to show that it is the accused who has pushed his own son Himanshu into Kulhal canal and thereby killed him. 15. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate has argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence. Again there is no tangible evidence to show that it is the accused who has pushed his own son Himanshu into Kulhal canal and thereby killed him. The circumstantial evidence as pressed in service according to learned defence Counsel is neither plausible nor reasonable. The findings of conviction under Section 302 IPC are stated to be recorded against the accused on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 16. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused has contended that the circumstantial evidence available on record is cogent and reliable. The change of circumstances as appeared in the prosecution evidence against the accused is complete and leave no manner of doubt that it is the accused who has pushed deceased Himanshu into canal and due to which he died. Learned lower Court, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while convicting the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. On having gone through the entire material on record and also the given facts and circumstances coupled with the factum of the present is a case where no direct evidence is available and rather the prosecution case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence an onerous duty is casted upon this Court to find out the truth by separating grain from the chaff. However, before that it is desirable to take note of the necessary ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 18. Reliance in this regard can be made to the provisions contained under Section 300 IPC. As a matter of fact, culpable homicide amounts to murder firstly if the accused is found to have acted with an intention to cause death or secondly to cause such bodily injury knowing fully well that the same is likely to cause death. Thirdly, intention of causing bodily injury to any person and such injury intended to be inflicted knowing fully well that the same in ordinary course of nature would be sufficient to cause death. 19. Culpable homicide has been defined under Section 299 IPC. Thirdly, intention of causing bodily injury to any person and such injury intended to be inflicted knowing fully well that the same in ordinary course of nature would be sufficient to cause death. 19. Culpable homicide has been defined under Section 299 IPC. Whoever causes death of someone by way of an act caused intentionally or with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death can be said to have committed the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court in Jagriti Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2869 has held that expression “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude of different degree. The ingredients of culpable homicide amounting to murder, therefore are: (i) causing death intentionally and (ii) causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death. Whether the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence or not is a question to be determined later on, however, before that what are legal parameters to appreciate the circumstantial evidence as we detailed in a recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2016, title Hikmat Bahadur versus State of Himachal Pradesh and its connected appeal rendered on September 19, 2017 need to be discussed. The same reads as follows: “…..Before the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case is elaborate, the present being a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court seized of the matter has to appreciate such evidence in the manner as legally required. We can draw support in this regard from a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sulender vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 550. The relevant extract of this judgment is re-produced here-as-under:- “21. It is well settled that in a case, which hinges on circumstantial evidence, circumstances on record must establish the guilt of the accused alone and rule out the probabilities leading to presumption of his innocence. The relevant extract of this judgment is re-produced here-as-under:- “21. It is well settled that in a case, which hinges on circumstantial evidence, circumstances on record must establish the guilt of the accused alone and rule out the probabilities leading to presumption of his innocence. The law is no more res integra, because the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 , has laid down the following principles: “It is well remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 22. The five golden principles, discussed and laid down, again by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , are as follows: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”... 21. Similar case is the ratio of judgment rendered again by this Bench in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rayia Urav @ Ajay, ILR 2016 (5) (HP) 213. 21. Similar case is the ratio of judgment rendered again by this Bench in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rayia Urav @ Ajay, ILR 2016 (5) (HP) 213. This judgment also reads as follows:- “10. As noticed supra, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and as such, the present case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence. In such like cases, as per the settled proposition of law, the chain of circumstances appearing on record should be complete in all respects so as to lead to the only conclusion that it is accused alone who has committed the offence. The conditions necessary in order to enable the court to record the findings of conviction against an offender on the basis of circumstantial evidence have been detailed in a judgment of this Court in Devinder Singh v. State of H.P. 1990 (1) Shim. L.C. 82 which reads as under:- “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilt. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 11. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Akhilesh Halam v. State of Bihar 1995 Suppl.(3) S.C.C. 357 that the prosecution is not only required to prove each and every circumstance as relied upon against the accused, but also that the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced here-as-under:- “.....It may be stated that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now settled by a serious of pronouncements of this Court. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced here-as-under:- “.....It may be stated that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now settled by a serious of pronouncements of this Court. According to the standard enunciated by this Court the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of the case must not only by fully established but the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for as conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of an accused is to be inferred, should be conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the same should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.”... 20. Learned trial Court in para-37 of the impugned judgment has taken into consideration the following circumstances and formed an opinion that the chain is complete:- (1) The accused suspected that complainant had extra marital relations with one person of the neighbourhood and both the children were born from those relations. (2) The accused used to torture the complainant and subject her to severe beatings on this issue and had given an axe blow on the head of the complainant in the year 2010. (3) The accused used to treat the children with cruelty and had no affection for them. (4) In the year 2010, when the complainant was dealt axe blow by the accused, she along with the children left the house and stayed with her father. (5) The accused thereafter, brought the complainant back alongwith children with the promise not to torture them anymore and kept nicely for about 6 months, where after maltreatment again begun. (6) The accused had made an attempt to eliminate the deceased child by putting him in a box as narrated by the complainant and others to the Investigating Officer, SHO Laiq Ram. (6) The accused had made an attempt to eliminate the deceased child by putting him in a box as narrated by the complainant and others to the Investigating Officer, SHO Laiq Ram. (7) On the fateful day, the accused intentionally brought the complainant and the deceased child to the office of SDM Paonta Sahib, with a view to get their Adhaar card prepared as he had a design in his mind to eliminate the child. (8) The accused intentionally made the complainant to stand in the queue to wait for the turn and at that very moment impressed upon her that he shall take Himanshu to market so that a computer could be purchased for him; whereas, as a matter of fact presence of Himanshu was also required on the spot as his Adhaar card was also to be prepared. Computer could have been purchased later on. (9) The accused thus, intentionally isolated the child and made his mother bound to stay before the Authorities by making her to stand in the queue so that she would not come in his way. (10) The accused took the child on the motorcycle across the Yamuna river and pushed the child in the canal and on his return made a false excuse by deposing that the child has alighted at Nirmal Sweet shop. (11) The accused thereafter, misguided the complainant and made her to report the police about the missing of the child and took her to the houses of relatives to search the child, whereas he himself knew that he had pushed the child in the water canal. (12) The accused on the next day instead of joining the search campaign of the child started evading his presence and also did not pick up the phone calls and in this manner the complainant and her father expressed that they suspected that the accused had hand in the missing of the child. (13) The accused was seen with the child going across the Yamuna bridge by PW15 Shri Parwinder Singh. He also noticed that the accused had returned all alone. (14) The accused thereafter, made a confessional statement and showed the canal, in which he had thrown the child and subsequently, body was recovered from the same canal. (13) The accused was seen with the child going across the Yamuna bridge by PW15 Shri Parwinder Singh. He also noticed that the accused had returned all alone. (14) The accused thereafter, made a confessional statement and showed the canal, in which he had thrown the child and subsequently, body was recovered from the same canal. The accused therefore, had a special knowledge as to from where the body of the child could be recovered and this evidence became admissible against him. (15) The accused while asked to explain the circumstances, he admitted the evidence to the effect that he had taken the child across the bridge and by the side of canal. He only tried to explain that child slipped in the water for no fault on his part. (16) Even if the child had slipped in the canal by accident, the conduct of the accused speaks volumes of his intentions and falsify the explanation given by him. The accused concealed all these facts and pretended as if the child had gone missing near the SDM office itself. (17) The medical evidence showed that the death of the child has been caused by drowning and death has taken place 10-15 days back and thus the possibility of murdering the child somewhere else and throwing the body in the canal are fully ruled out. (18) The accused thus, had a motive, had failed in his previous attempt and thus created an opportunity to execute his designs by bringing the child and the mother for preparation of their Adhaar card and by making the mother of the child to stand in the queue before the Authorities and executed his designs with utmost cleverness. 21. We are in full agreement with learned trial Court as the above sated circumstances appeared on record against the accused. The question for our consideration is, however, that the chain of circumstances so appeared on record is complete so as to establish the guilt of the accused in the commission of the offence. Our answer to this poser in all fairness and in the ends of justice would be in affirmative for the reason that on facts the prosecution and defence by and large is not at variance. As noticed hereinabove the accused admit the complainant to be his legally wedded wife. He also admits strained relations between them. Our answer to this poser in all fairness and in the ends of justice would be in affirmative for the reason that on facts the prosecution and defence by and large is not at variance. As noticed hereinabove the accused admit the complainant to be his legally wedded wife. He also admits strained relations between them. Though he has disputed that the cause thereto was extra marital relations of his wife, the complainant, with someone else, however, has failed to assign any other and further reason thereto. We are convinced that the cause of strained relations between accused and complainant was the suspicion the former entertained against the latter that she had extra marital relations with someone else as had it been not so at least PW3 Fateh Singh his father and brother Surjeet Singh PW17 would have not stated so while in the witness box. They have not been cross-examined qua this aspect of their testimony having come on record in their examination-in-chief. There is thus admission on the part of the accused that he was suspecting her relations with someone else. His wife the complainant PW1, father-in-law Ram Dass PW16 and brother-in-law Vishal PW6 have also stated in own voice that the accused was suspecting the relations of PW1 with someone else. They have also not been cross-examined qua this aspect of the matter. In normal circumstances their testimony could have been suspected on account of interested in the success of prosecution evidence, however, their testimony in examination-in-chief is not discredited at all as they have not been cross-examined qua this aspect of the matter. It is thus safe to place reliance thereon also while arriving at a conclusion that the cause of strained relations between the accused and the complainant was the former suspecting the chastity of latter. The evidence as has come on record by way of the statement of PW3 Fateh Singh and PW17 Surjeet Singh cannot be ignored by any stretch of imagination as they were none else but the father and real brother respectively of the accused. Normally the father and brother will not implicate his own son/brother that too in a case of this nature. Both PWs 3 and 17 had shown the guts and told truth while in the witness box to substantiate the cause of justice. Normally the father and brother will not implicate his own son/brother that too in a case of this nature. Both PWs 3 and 17 had shown the guts and told truth while in the witness box to substantiate the cause of justice. No suggestion was given to them that they deposed so on account of enmity or for some extraneous consideration. Therefore, from the circumstances appeared on record and relied upon against the accused it is proved satisfactorily that the accused had been doubting the chastity of his wife, the complainant and was under the impression that the two sons including deceased were not born to the complainant from his loins and rather from that of the person with whom she allegedly was having extra marital relations. 22. Be it stated that in a case of circumstantial evidence the motive to commit the offence plays a vital role. In the present case the circumstances appeared against the accused on record establish that he had the motive to kill deceased Himanshu since he was belaboring under the belief that Himanshu is not born to complainant from his loins and rather from that of someone else, therefore, he had the cause to eliminate Himanshu. The testimony of the complainant PW1 that of her father-in-law PW3 Fateh Singh, brother-in-law PW17 Surjeet Singh reveal that the accused had no liking for the children. As per the testimony of PWs 1 and 3 the children used to remain in the company of their grandfather PW3 for all the time. According to PW3 deceased Himanshu was even sleeping also with him whereas as per that of PW1 the accused was not allowing the children to sleep with them (accused and complainant). Himanshu, therefore, had become an eyesore for the accused. It is for this reason he has planned to done away with the life of deceased Himanshu. 23. As per own admission of the accused his wife the complainant and Himanshu both accompanied him to Paonta Sahib for preparation of Adhaar cards. He also admits that while the complainant was asked to stand in queue and deposit the forms in the SDM office, he went to the market for buying a computer. He had also taken Himanshu with him. He also admits that he returned alone to SDM office. He also admits that while the complainant was asked to stand in queue and deposit the forms in the SDM office, he went to the market for buying a computer. He had also taken Himanshu with him. He also admits that he returned alone to SDM office. On query by his wife as to where Himanshu was, his reply was that he alighted from the motor cycle at Nirmal Sweet shop. Surprisingly enough, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. his reply to question No. 26 was altogether different because when the disclosure statement Ext.PW16/A was put to him he replied that no doubt he had made the statement to the police, however, not that he pushed Himanshu into canal and rather that Himanshu slipped away and fell into canal at his own. Had it been so, why it was not disclosed to the complainant at the best available opportunity to him when on his return alone she inquired as to where Himanshu was. There was no occasion for him to have disclosed her at that time that Himanshu had alighted from the motor cycle at Nirmal Sweet shop. The different statement the accused made qua this vital part of the prosecution case speaks in plenty that Himanshu was thrown by the accused alone into the canal and he died due to that. The disclosure statement Ext.PW16/A is duly proved from the testimony of Ram Dass PW16, a witness thereto. Even the accused has also admitted the statement having been made by him to the police, however, qualified his version that he has made the statement qua deceased Himanshu having slipped into the canal at his own and not pushed by him into it, which for the reasons already recorded cannot be believed to be true. The testimony of PW15 may not be of much help to the prosecution case because even if it is believed that the said witness was buying articles in S.K. General Store situated near Yamuna bridge was not expected to have take note of the accused driving the motor cycle with a child as pillion rider and also the accused returning alone after one hour. The accused, however, has himself admitted that he returned alone from the market. 24. The accused, however, has himself admitted that he returned alone from the market. 24. The remaining prosecution case i.e. the dead body of Himanshu was seen floating in Kulhal canal by PW4 Jagbir Singh in the morning is also satisfactorily proved on record as this part of the prosecution case is not only supported by PW4 Jagbir Singh CISF personnel on duty at canal but also the another official Sh. Sham Singh PW5, PW7 Surjeet Singh the brother of accused as well as PW18 Gurmeet Singh who accompanied Surjeet Singh to Kulhal canal where the dead body was seen. The prosecution case qua taking in possession the dead body and forwarding the same to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib for post mortem also stand satisfactorily proved from the testimony of PW10 Dr. Kamal Pasha who on examination of the dead body and its condition alongwith Dr. Rajiv Chauhan concluded that the dead body being in decomposed condition its post mortem was required to be conducted by a forensic expert. The dead body, as such, was referred to IGMC, Shimla where the autopsy was conducted by PW21 Dr. Sangeet Dhillon. In his opinion, the cause of the death was throwing the deceased into water and consequently drowning. 25. The link evidence produced by the prosecution also substantiates the circumstances appearing against the accused in prosecution evidence. As already noticed PW4 Jagbir Singh was working as JCB Operator at the relevant time in A.P.E. company, Khara Hydro Electric Project. It is he who noticed the dead body of Himanshu in Kulhal canal on 12.6.2015 around 8:00 a.m. He informed the CISF official on duty at the project site. Consequently, PW4 Sham Singh who was posted as ASI in CISF Unit, Khara Hydro Electric project at that time informed Mirjapur and Paonta Sahib Police about the dead body lying in the canal. The canal leads to Haryana to Kulhal side is proved from the testimony of PW7 Ram Bhaj Sharma, Patwar, Patwari Circle, Ambari, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. He has supplied the copy of revenue papers Ext.PW7/A and tatima Ext.PW7/B to the police. PW8 Pankaj Kumar, Lekh Pal, Patwari Circle, Tehsil Behat, District Saharanpur (UP) has supplied the jamabandi Ext.PW8/A and tatima Ext.PW8/B of the place from where the dead body was recovered. PW9 Sukhjit Singh at the relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer at Asan Barrage, Dhalipur (Uttrakhand). PW8 Pankaj Kumar, Lekh Pal, Patwari Circle, Tehsil Behat, District Saharanpur (UP) has supplied the jamabandi Ext.PW8/A and tatima Ext.PW8/B of the place from where the dead body was recovered. PW9 Sukhjit Singh at the relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer at Asan Barrage, Dhalipur (Uttrakhand). On an application Ext.PW9/A made to him by the police he had supplied the certificate Ext.PW9/B to the effect that canal leads to Haryana via Asan barrage, Kulhal, Mutak Majri etc. 26. The remaining witnesses are police officials. PW11 Constable Pradeep Kumar, Police Station, Paonta Sahib has proved the seizure memo Ext.PW11/A whereby the vehicle along with its key was taken in possession by the I.O. PW12 HHC D.R. Thakur has proved the memo Ext.PW12/A whereby the IO has taken in possession one nip of water from canal. PW13 HHC Rajinder Singh, Police Station, Paonta Sahib had taken the case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide RC No. 77/15 Ext.PW14/B and deposited the same there in safe custody. PW14 HHC Virender Singh was posted as Moharar Head Constable in police Station, Paonta Sahib at the relevant time. He has received the case property, made its entries Ext.PW14/A in the Malkhanna register and later on forwarded the same to Forensic Science Laboratory for testing through PW13 vide RC No. 77/15 Ext.PW14/B. PW19 at the relevant time was posted as SHO in Police Station, Paonta Sahib. He has recorded the FIR Ext.PW19/A on the basis of the report Ext.PW1/A lodged by the complainant. He had prepared spot map Ext.PW19/C and also issued hue and cry notice Ext.PW19/D. According to him when PW1 complainant and her father-in-law PW3 Fateh Singh was associated in the investigation of the case on the next day i.e. 31.5.2015 they both stated that the accused was suspecting her extra marital relations with someone else and that it is he who had either killed Master Himanshu or hidden him at some place. PW15 Parvinder Singh was also associated on the same day. In view of their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the accused was arrested by PW19 and handed over the case file to PW20 ASI Mohar Singh for further investigation. It is PW20 who had recorded the disclosure statement Ext.PW16/A made by the accused while in custody and prepared the identification memo Ext.PW16/B of the place from where the dead body was recovered. It is PW20 who had recorded the disclosure statement Ext.PW16/A made by the accused while in custody and prepared the identification memo Ext.PW16/B of the place from where the dead body was recovered. He had also prepared the spot map Ext.PW20/B and inquest papers Ext.PW20/C and Ext.PW20/D. The application Ext.PW10/A was made to the Medical officer for conducting post mortem of the dead body. The dead body was sent through Constable Ram Kumar vide docket Ext.PW20/E to IGMC Shimla for expert opinion. PW20 had also taken the photographs Ext.PW20/G-1 to Ext.PW20/G-16. He had also collected the revenue record i.e. Ext.PW9/B, PW8/A and PW8/B. The reports from laboratory Ext.PA and PB were also taken on record. 27. The link evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of the former/official witnesses discussed hereinabove also helps the prosecution to show that the chain of circumstances appearing against the accused in prosecution evidence is complete in all respect. 28. The present in view of the discussion hereinabove is a case where the circumstances pressed into service against the accused stand satisfactorily established on record. The circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution being conclusive in nature is with the findings of guilt of the accused recorded by learned trial Court. The chain of circumstances is complete and leave no reasonable ground for arriving a conclusion inconsistent with the guilt of the accused and also satisfies the conscience of this Court that it is the accused alone who had thrown his son Himanshu in Kulhal canal and as a result thereof he died. 29. True it is that a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale and the prosecution must built its case on the edifice of evidence legally admissible. However, in this case, legally admissible evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused in the commission of such a gruesome offence, hence he rendered himself liable to be convicted and sentenced for the commission of said offence. Learned trial Judge, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while recording the findings of conviction against the accused. 30. In view of what has said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.