JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Both the convicts have suffered the punishment of R.I for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 302/34 IPC and R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- under section 201/34 IPC for committing murder of Pangila Jamuda @ Pitu Jamuda who is wife of the appellant no.1, namely, Saheb Jamuda @ Raghunath Jamuda and for causing disappearance of her dead body. 2. The informant, namely, Ramesh Purty is the father of Pangila Jamuda, the deceased. In his fardbeyan, he has stated that his daughter was married to Saheb Jamuda about 4 years back and from the wedlock one boy and one girl child were born. His son-in-law was sitting idle and he takes drinks (haria) and gambles the whole day. His daughter used to sell drinks (haria) for earning livelihood and that was the reason her father-in-law had separated from them. The informant has alleged that his daughter informed him that her husband used to abuse her and sometimes commits marpit. About one week prior to the incident his daughter came to him and complained about her husband whereupon he tried to resolve the matter with his son-in-law, who then tendered apology and promised that he would search work for himself and took his daughter to her matrimonial home. On receiving information from the villagers of Gurasai that his daughter has died of diarrhea, the informant alongwith his uncle, namely, Katey Ram Purty came to Gurasai (Tola-Peesai) and enquired about his daughter. His son-in-law and his father, both informed him that Pangila Jamuda has died due to diarrhea, however, he found tongue of his daughter protruded and black mark around her neck. He has also found that blood was oozing from her nose. On seeing the injuries on his daughter, he told his son-in-law that his daughter has not died of diarrhea rather they have killed her and therefore they should not cremate her dead body. The informant came back home and the next day he went to the police station, lodged an information and when he came to the house of the accused persons he found that his son-in-law and his father had buried the dead body of his daughter. The informant came back home and the next day he went to the police station, lodged an information and when he came to the house of the accused persons he found that his son-in-law and his father had buried the dead body of his daughter. With the help of police and magistrate, the dead body was recovered and a First Information Report vide, Chakradharpur P.S Case No.99 of 2008 was lodged under section 302/201/34 IPC against Saheb Jamuda and his father, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses; the informant, namely, Ramesh Purty is P.W.1, his wife, namely, Nitima Purty is P.W.2 and his uncle, namely, Katey Ram Purty is P.W.3. The Circle Officer, namely, Surendra Kumar, who was deputed by a written order of the magistrate and in whose presence the dead body was recovered, has been examined as P.W.9. 4. Dr. Lalan Choudhary-P.W.10, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on 18.07.2008 at about 1.45 p.m, has found the following injuries on the dead body of Pangila Jamuda: A. Contusions (1) 3cm X 2cm over right scapular region, (2) 3cm X 2cm over left Labia Majora. B. On dissection- Contusion of left tempora parietal scalp posterior part; 4cm X 3cm. Right frontal scalp contused; 3cm X 3cm. Left parietal scalp contused; 6cm X 4cm. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to head injury, the injuries on the deceased Pangila Jamuda were caused by hard and blunt substance and contusion of Labia Majora was subjective of hard and blunt penetration. 6. Mr. R.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that; (i) the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the appellants were not proved and the chain of circumstances was completely broken, (ii) no motive has been attributed to the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda for his involvement in the crime, (iii) the dead body of Pangila Jamuda was buried in the field after committing her murder has not been proved and, (iv) conviction of Jai Singh Jamuda with the aid of section 34 IPC is illegal. 7. The law on the circumstantial evidence has been discussed by the Supreme Court in plethora of judgments. One of the earliest judgments on the subject was delivered in " Bhagat Ram Vs. 7. The law on the circumstantial evidence has been discussed by the Supreme Court in plethora of judgments. One of the earliest judgments on the subject was delivered in " Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, (1954) AIR SC 621 ''', wherein it has been held that if the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from the circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and establish conclusively his guilt. In " Navaneethakrishnan v. The State By Inspector of Police, (2018) 16 SCC 161 ", the Supreme Court has held that each and every incriminating circumstance sought to be relied on by the prosecution against the accused must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of circumstances from which the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn should be about the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt of the accused is possible. 8. It is also well-settled that motive provides an important link in the chain of circumstances, particularly, in a case primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant no.1 is the husband of the deceased. He was sitting idle, taking drinks (haria) and playing gamble the whole day whereas his wife used to earn livelihood by selling drinks (haria) and that is the reason there were continuous fight between the couple. This fact has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. They are the related witnesses, however, quarrel between the couple and the matrimonial discord are usually witnessed by the family members only and the neighbours would be generally reluctant to come to the court and depose one way or the other. The informant in his examination-in-chief has stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Saheb Jamuda about 4 years back, however, he was not working anywhere and used to fight with his daughter. He further says that the appellant no.1 sometimes engaged in marpit with his wife after quarrel between them as he was not earning any livelihood though he was blessed with two children. Through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the prosecution has proved motive behind the crime. The informant has spoken about the appellant no.1 sending false information to him about the death of Pangila Jamuda due to diarrhea. Through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the prosecution has proved motive behind the crime. The informant has spoken about the appellant no.1 sending false information to him about the death of Pangila Jamuda due to diarrhea. He has also stated that inspite of his insistence not to cremate the dead body of his daughter the accused persons hurriedly buried her dead body in the field situated in the backside of their house which was recovered with the help of police and magistrate. In his fardbeyan and in his deposition in the court the informant has made a specific mention about the injuries on the dead body of his daughter, blood oozing out from her nose, tongue protruded and black mark around her neck. His wife, namely, Nitima Purty has been examined as P.W.2 and his uncle, namely, Katey Ram Purty has been examined as P.W.3. Both these witnesses have spoken about fight between the appellant no.1 and his wife. She has also stated that the appellant no.1 was not earning livelihood rather his wife was bringing up their children by selling drinks (haria). P.W.3 is the person who has accompanied the informant to the house of the appellants after they received information in the afternoon of 15.07.2008. He has seen injuries on the body of Pangila Jamuda. The doctor-P.W.10 has rendered an opinion that the death was caused between 3 to 5 days from the post-mortem; the informant was given information about the death of his daughter on 15.07.2008 and the post-mortem was conducted on 18.07.2008 at about 1.45 p.m. The opinion of the doctor on the time elapsed since death thus corroborates the prosecution story that Pangila Jamuda was done to death in the intervening night of 14/15th July, 2008. P.W.1 and P.W.3 both have seen injuries on the dead body of Pangila Jamuda and this fact is corroborated by the medical evidence. The doctor has found contusions, one of which was subjective of hard and blunt penetration and the body of Pangila Jamuda was found highly decomposed. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries on Pangila Jamuda were not caused due to a fall on the hard and blunt object. 9. On such facts, homicidal death of Pangila Jamuda has been established by the prosecution. 10. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries on Pangila Jamuda were not caused due to a fall on the hard and blunt object. 9. On such facts, homicidal death of Pangila Jamuda has been established by the prosecution. 10. According to the prosecution, the second place of occurrence is a field behind the house of the appellants where the dead body of Pangila Jamuda was concealed. This fact is sought to be established by the prosecution through P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.14. The Circle Officer, namely, Surendra Kumar is the officer who was directed by a written order of the Sub-Divisional Officer to recover the dead body of Pangila Jamuda. He has deposed in the court that from a field behind the house of Saheb Jamuda dead body of a young woman was recovered. He says that the police prepared an inquest report in his presence on which he has put his signature. The investigating officer, who is P.W.14, has deposed in the court that on his written application the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakradharpur directed the Circle Officer, Chakradharpur to visit the village and recover the dead body of Pangila Jamuda. He has given description of the place of occurrence. He has proved the inquest as well as the other material objects. Whatever evidence has been given by the informant about the appellants concealing the dead body and recovery of the dead body of his daughter, that have been fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.14. Regarding absence of soil on the dead body of Pangila Jamuda, we may indicate here that once recovery of dead body from the field is proved by the prosecution whether the witnesses have found soil on the dead body or not is really immaterial. Moreover, on account of lapse of time, inadvertence or for some other reasons there would be some inconsistency in the prosecution''s story in every case but on minor inconsistency or embellishment or exaggeration the prosecution''s case does not become doubtful. In " A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 279 ''', the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under: 22. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety." 11. From the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that the dead body of Pangila Jamuda was concealed in the field behind the house of the appellants and it was recovered in presence of P.W.9 and P.W.14 have been proved by the prosecution. 12. In their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, these incriminating circumstances were put to them, however, the appellants have simply denied these circumstances. Evasive reply of an accused or non-explanation of an incriminating circumstance by an accused in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C may not be a ground to record his conviction, but then, in a case based on circumstantial evidence and, that too, when a wife has been found dead in her matrimonial home the husband must say something how his wife has died. In such a situation evasive reply by a husband or his not offering a plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstance would also be an incriminating circumstance against him [refer " State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 "]. 13. From the evidences laid by the prosecution, it stands proved that Pangila Jamuda met with a homicidal death in the intervening night of 14/15th July, 2008, a false information was sent by the appellant no.1 to the parents of Pangila Jamuda about the cause of her death, her dead body has been recovered from a field behind his house. However, the appellant no.1 has failed to offer any explanation how all this has happened and he had a motive to kill his wife has been clearly brought on record. However, the appellant no.1 has failed to offer any explanation how all this has happened and he had a motive to kill his wife has been clearly brought on record. In the above factual scenario, in our opinion, the prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence to establish complicity of the appellant no.1 in the crime and, accordingly, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal qua the appellant no.1, namely, Saheb Jamuda. 14. Now, the question is whether the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda can be convicted for the murder of Pangila Jamuda with the aid of section 34 IPC. 15. Section 34 IPC by itself is not an offence but it makes constructively liable other persons for the offence committed in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code embodies constructive liability of other accused persons for the act of one. It talks of prior consult between two or more persons but it is not necessary that the other one must have played an active role. Section 34 IPC embodies constructive liability of all the accused persons. It is not a substantive offence but it makes other persons vicariously liable for the act of one or the other. In " Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. Vs. The State of Bombay, (1960) AIR SC 289 ''', it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the principle which section 34 IPC embodies is participation in action with the common intention of committing a crime and once such participation is established, section 34 is at once attracted. But then, to rope in an accused with the aid of section 34 IPC the prosecution must prove that the death has been caused in furtherance of common intention of all. 16. It is the prosecution''s own case that due to his son sitting idle and not earning livelihood the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda has separated him from the house. The frequent quarrel between the appellant no.1 and his wife is the reason for the incident is the case set up by the prosecution. The informant is categorical in his examination-in-chief where he has stated that Saheb Jamuda has killed his daughter and in his cross-examination he has admitted that when he visited village-Gurasai, Jai Singh Jamuda was not present in the house. The informant is categorical in his examination-in-chief where he has stated that Saheb Jamuda has killed his daughter and in his cross-examination he has admitted that when he visited village-Gurasai, Jai Singh Jamuda was not present in the house. None of the prosecution witnesses - P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 - have spoken about ill-treatment of Pangila Jamuda by her father-in-law. There is no allegation of any demand of dowry, harassment or torture upon Pangila Jamuda by her father-in-law. There is absolute silence by the prosecution regarding motive of the appellant no.2 to commit murder of his daughter-in-law and he is not the person who has sent a false information about her death to her father. 17. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda under section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable and, accordingly, it is set-aside. 18. However, since the dead body of Pangila Jamuda has been recovered from the field behind the house of the appellants and it has come in the prosecution''s evidence that alongwith Saheb Jamuda his father, the appellant no.2, has also failed to give correct information about the death of Pangila Jamuda to the informant when he visited his house though the appellant no.2 had the knowledge of death of Pangila Jamuda, his conviction under section 201/34 IPC can be sustained. 19. Ordered accordingly. 20. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned APP states that the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda was granted bail on 07.12.2016. Accordingly, Jai Singh Jamuda stands discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 58 of 2014 is allowed in respect of the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Singh Jamuda, however, dismissed as against the appellant no.1, namely, Saheb Jamuda. 22. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.