JUDGMENT : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. These two criminal appeals preferred by the appellants under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. arise out of the common judgment dated 09.04.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 15/2009 whereby the appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In Default 302, 302/120-B IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10000/- Six months simple imprisonment 201 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment 5000/- Two months simple imprisonment 2. The facts in brief are that a written report (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Lal Chand (PW1) on 08.03.2009 at about 07:30 am at Police Station Sadulshahar District Sri Ganganagar wherein it was inter-alia alleged that the first informant and his four brothers namely Kashi Ram, Mahaveer, Vijay and Shishpal have separate residences in villages Maniawali, Fatuhi and Binjbayla. His brother Vijay, aged 35 years was unmarried and used to visit village Maniwali quite often. Vijay came to visit him on 02.03.2009. He also used to frequent the house of his neighbour Mohan Lal Mirasi. On 03.03.2009, while the first informant and his wife Bismilla were at home, Vijay was also present with them. On that day, Kalu and Subhash, brothers-in-law of Mohan Lal had come to his house. Kalu and wife of Mohan Lal namely Manju called Vijay to their home and all of them consumed liquor together. He and his wife took dinner and went to sleep. They did not know as to when Vijay returned home. On 04.03.2009 at 7’ O clock in the morning, Vijay took tea with him. Thereafter, at around 10:00 am, Manju, Kalu and Subhash called Vijay to their house. The first informant went to do his labour job in the village. He returned home at around 8:00 pm on which his wife told him that she had gone to call Vijay at Mohan Lai’s house whereupon Manju informed her that Vijay had gone from their house after taking food at 12’0 clock in the noon. A search was made for whereabouts of Vijay but he could not be traced out. The first informant also inquired Manju about Vijay on a number of occasions. She persisted with her version that Vijay had gone away from their house after taking lunch. A search was made for whereabouts of Vijay but he could not be traced out. The first informant also inquired Manju about Vijay on a number of occasions. She persisted with her version that Vijay had gone away from their house after taking lunch. On 07.03.2009, the first informant and his brother Kashi Ram took a Jeep driven by Prem Bhambhu and went to village Dulmana in search of his brother Vijay. They reached the house of Sarpanch Hansraj and found that Subhash was sitting there. Subhash confessed in the presence of the Sarpanch that on 04.03.2009 Vijay was made to consume liquor by Manju and Kalu due to which he became inebriated. At about 12:30 pm Manju inflicted 2-3 blows on the head of Vijay by Ghota and Kalu who was disabled in feet gave a lathi blow on the head of Vijay due to which he passed away on the spot. Thereafter, Manju and Kalu threatened Subhash that if he told about the incident to anyone then he too would be killed. He was pressurized by them to dispose of the dead body by concealing it in the Kui (Septic tank of the latrine) built in the house of Manju. He further alleged that the dead body was put inside the septic tank which was closed by a stone. Vijay was killed in the room of Mohan Lal where a lot of blood was spread which was covered up by Manju with mud. The first informant returned to Maniwali and told his wife about the incident. He alleged that his brother was killed by Manju, Kalu and Subhash Mirasi after hatching a conspiracy with each other and his dead body was concealed in the septic tank of latrine. This report was received at Police Station, Sadulshahar on 08.03.2009, upon which an FIR No. 59/2009 was registered for the offences under sections 302, 201/120-B IPC against the accused-appellants and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the accused-appellants were arrested vide different arrest memos in the following order:- The accused appellant Manju Devi @ Behna was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P3) dated 08.03.2009. Accused appellant Kalu Khan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/11 dated 10.03.2009. The accused appellant Subhash was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/12 dated 10.03.2009. 3. During the course of investigation, the accused-appellants were arrested vide different arrest memos in the following order:- The accused appellant Manju Devi @ Behna was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P3) dated 08.03.2009. Accused appellant Kalu Khan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/11 dated 10.03.2009. The accused appellant Subhash was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/12 dated 10.03.2009. 3. Shri Rajendra Singh, investigating Officer (PW13) claims that he recorded the disclosure statement of Manju under section 27 of the Evidence act (Ex. P/66) on 08.03.2009 at 12:05 pm wherein Manju divulged that after killing Vijay, his dead body had been concealed in the septic tank built in her house. The investigation Officer further claims that he summoned a JCB in furtherance of such information. The septic tank was dug up and dead body of Vijay was taken out from therein by Sahi Ram (PW7). The Investigating Officer further claims to have prepared a swab of blood spread upon body of the cooler lying in the room of Mohan Lai. It is also alleged that a Ghota (wooden club) was recovered at the instance of Manju in furtherance of the information supplied by her to the investigating officer under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the statement of Kalu under section 27 of the Evidence Act, Lathi was recovered. The articles recovered in furtherance of information supplied by the accused-appellants and clothes allegedly taken off from the body of Vijay were forwarded to the FSL for chemical and serological examination. After concluding the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused-appellants for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadulsahar. Since the offences were triable by Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar from where the same was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. The trial court framed the charges against the accused-appellants for the above offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited as many as 68 documents in support of its case. 5. The accused, upon being questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence denied the charges and claimed to be innocent. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited as many as 68 documents in support of its case. 5. The accused, upon being questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence denied the charges and claimed to be innocent. One document was exhibited in defence but no oral evidence was adduced. 6. After hearing and appreciating the submissions advanced by the defence as well as the prosecution and after evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above vide judgment dated 09.04.2012. Hence, this appeal. 7. The prosecution case can be summarized as below:- (1) That Vijay was involved in illicit relationship with the accused-appellant Smt. Manju. (2) That Vijay was called to the house of accused Smt. Manju on 04.03.2009 and was made to consume liquor. (3) That while deceased was in an inebriated condition, Smt. Manju and Kalu inflicted blunt weapon blows on the head of Vijay which proved fatal. (4) That the dead body of deceased Vijay was concealed in the septic tank of latrine build in the house of Smt. Manju and Mohan Lai. (5) That Subhash made extra-judicial confessions in the presence of Sarpanch Hansraj, Kashi Ram, Lal Chand (first informant) and Prem Kumar. (6) That dead body of Vijay was recovered in furtherance to the information supplied by accused appellant Smt. Manju to the investigating officer under section 27 of the Evidence Act. (7) That the accused Smt. Manju and Kalu got the blood stained blunt weapons recovered. (8) That swab from the cooler lying in the room of Smt. Manju and Mohan Lal was also collected. (9) That the clothes of the deceased and the articles recovered at the instance of the accused were forwarded to the FSL from where an analysis report (Ex. P/68) was received indicating presence of "B" group blood on these articles. 8. On the strength of these circumstances, the prosecution claims to have established the complete chain of circumstances which explicitly points towards the guilt of the accused-appellants. 9. P/68) was received indicating presence of "B" group blood on these articles. 8. On the strength of these circumstances, the prosecution claims to have established the complete chain of circumstances which explicitly points towards the guilt of the accused-appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that evidence about the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by Subhash is highly doubtful as there was no reason for PW1 Lal Chand and PW2 Kashi Ram to visit Dulmana, more particularly, the house of Sarpanch Hansraj. He further submitted that it cannot be a coincidence that at the house of Hansraj, Subhash met them and he confessed that Vijay was killed by Manju and Kalu. This appears to be highly unnatural. 10. It is a fact that PW1 Lal Chand and PW2 Kashi Ram went to the house of Sarpanch Hansraj in whose presence the extrajudicial confession was made by Subhash but interestingly, Hansraj, (Sarpanch) has not been examined. 11. It was contended that PW1 Lal Chand and PW2 Kashi Ram were accompanied by the driver of the jeep PW6 Prem Kumar who was present when Subhash made the confession. PW6 Prem Kumar did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He further submitted that there is a stark difference between the version of extrajudicial confession as set out in the FIR and the statement of PW1 Lal Chand. In the FIR, Subhash is said to have stated that Smt. Manju and Kalu assaulted Vijay with Ghota and Lathi resulting into his death whereas in his statement, he has named Kalu Ram, Mohan Lai, Smt. Manju, Subhash and Kalu S/o. Gani Ram who killed Vijay, therefore, it will not be safe to rely upon the extrajudicial confession of Subhash in the present case. The extrajudicial confession is not worth reliance in these circumstances. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the disclosure statement of Smt. Manju is not reliable as the place where the dead body of Vijay was buried was already disclosed in the FIR and it has come in the statement of PW2 Kashi Ram that Ghota was taken away by the police on the date on which, the report was submitted i.e. 08.03.2009. 13. 13. The fact that despite receiving the information about the murder of their brother at Dulmana and rather than going to the police station, PW1 Lal Chand and PW2 Kashi Ram who are real brothers of the deceased went to their houses respectively and the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. on 08.03.2009. This delay in lodging the FIR also creates a doubt in the prosecution story. 14. There was neither any motive for the accused to kill the deceased Vijay nor any witness was examined to give evidence of the alleged extra marital affair between Vijay and Smt. Manju. He further submitted that although it has come on record that Mohan Lal and Kalu S/o. Gani Ram were involved in the present incident but they were not charge-sheeted and since Mohan Lal and Kalu S/o. Gani Ram stand on the same footing, therefore, the conviction of the appellants in the present case cannot be sustained. He further submitted that FSL report cannot be read in evidence with respect to the packet ‘C’ as the investigating officer himself admitted the fact that in packet ‘C’, the clothes of the deceased Vijay Kumar were not found as the packet was absolutely empty. Hence, the counsel for the appellants on the strength of the submissions made submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. He, therefore, prays that conviction of the accused-appellants should be set aside and the appellants should be acquitted of the charges leveled against them. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove the offence alleged against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submitted that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances in a fashion which only points towards the guilt of the accused-appellants and none-else. He contended that as per the statements of Lal Chand(PW-1) & Bismilla(PW-3) Vijay had gone to the house of Smt. Manju and consumed liquor there. 16. He further submitted that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances in a fashion which only points towards the guilt of the accused-appellants and none-else. He contended that as per the statements of Lal Chand(PW-1) & Bismilla(PW-3) Vijay had gone to the house of Smt. Manju and consumed liquor there. 16. When Vijay did not return, PW-3 Bismilla went to the house of accused-appellant Smt. Manju where all the three appellants were sitting and she was informed by Smt. Manju that Vijay will have lunch at their place but when Bismilla(PW-3) again went to the house of Smt. Manju at around 03:00 P.M., she was informed that Vijay left their place at around 12:00-12:30 P.M. In these circumstances, the fact that Vijay was last seen alive in the company of accused-appellants is established from the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the extra judicial confession made by Subhash after which the FIR was registered and the body of the deceased was recovered from the septic tank of latrine located in the periphery of the house of the accused-appellant Smt. Manju. The recoveries and the medical evidence fully corroborate the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He contended that FSL report fortifies the fact of completing the chain of circumstances pointing towards the fact that in present case, the accused-appellants were the only persons who have committed the offence alleged and nobody else. 17. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as impugned judgment dated 09.04.2012. 18. The fact that deceased Vijay was related to Mohan Lal and was visiting his house right from his childhood has come on record. The deceased was a regular visitor to the house of Mohan Lal and had some relationship with Smt. Manju is also borne out from the statement of PW1 Lal Chand. The deceased was called and taken to the house of Mohan Lal by the appellants is clear from the statement of PW1 Lal Chand and PW3 Smt. Bismilla. When PW1 Lal Chand returned home after his daily engagement of work, he asked his wife about Vijay & was apprised that he had not returned home after being taken away to the house of Smt. Manju. When PW1 Lal Chand returned home after his daily engagement of work, he asked his wife about Vijay & was apprised that he had not returned home after being taken away to the house of Smt. Manju. PW3 Smt. Bismilla also stated that after the three appellants took deceased Vijay to the house of Smt. Manju, she went there at around 11:00 am and saw that Vijay and Kalu were consuming liquor and Smt. Manju and Subhash were standing near them. On asking Smt. Manju, she told to Smt. Bismilla (PW3) that Vijay will have lunch at her place. At around 3:00 pm, when Smt. Bismilla (PW3) asked Manju about Vijay, she informed that he left the place at around 12-12:30 pm. In these circumstances, when PW1 Lal Chand and PW3 Smt. Bismilla could not find Vijay, a search was made and PW1 Lal Chand informed his brother PW2 Kashi Ram about the fact that Vijay was called by the appellants and to the house of Smt. Manju and, thereafter, he was untraceable. PW1 Lal Chand and PW2 Subhash made a search for their missing brother Vijay by visiting different places and in the sequence, on 07.03.2009, they went to the village Dulmana in a Jeep driven by PW6 Prem Kumar and visited the house of Sarpanch Hansraj where they met Subhash who made the extrajudicial confession about the murder of their brother Vijay and ultimately, FIR was lodged in the morning and investigation was conducted. 19. On close examination & evaluating of the entire evidence available on record, we find that Vijay was taken away by Smt. Manju, Subhash and Kalu & was made to consume liquor, he was last seen alive by PW3 Smt. Bismilla at the house of Smt. Manju. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the statement of PW3 Smt. Bismilla who conclusively stated that when she went to the house of Smt. Manju, Vijay was having liquor and was lastly seen alive in the company of all the three accused-appellants. 20. After getting the information about dumping the body of deceased Vijay in the septic tank of latrine, the same was dug out on the next day. 20. After getting the information about dumping the body of deceased Vijay in the septic tank of latrine, the same was dug out on the next day. The location of the septic tank of latrine is mentioned in the site plan which shows that it is about 50 feet from the room where the deceased Vijay was assaulted and the septic tank of latrine is located within the boundary walls of the house of Mohan Lai. Since, Smt. Manju was the woman in control of the house being resident of that house in which septic tank of latrine was located and factum of presence of two persons namely Kalu Khan and Subhash at the time of the incident is established from the testimony of prosecution witnesses which shows that they were only involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Besides this, we also note that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellants being present in the house of accused-appellant Smt. Manju coupled with the fact that Subhash had made extrajudicial confession and recovery of dead body of the deceased having injuries completing the chain of circumstances. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Vijay was assaulted by the accused-appellants and his dead body was concealed in the septic tank of latrine built in the house of Smt. Manju. 21. Recovery of blood stained ‘Ghota’ and ‘Lathi’ further corroborate the injuries found on the body of the deceased as shown in the postmortem report (Ex. P/24). As per the postmortem report (Ex. P/24), the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to injuries on skull, bones and brain which are ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As per the FSL report (Ex. P/68), blood of group ‘B’ was found on the weapons of offence i.e. ‘Lathi’ and ‘Ghota’ and matched the blood group found on the clothes of the deceased completing the chain of circumstances pointing towards the fact that the appellants were the only persons involved in the commission of the alleged offences in the present case. 22. P/68), blood of group ‘B’ was found on the weapons of offence i.e. ‘Lathi’ and ‘Ghota’ and matched the blood group found on the clothes of the deceased completing the chain of circumstances pointing towards the fact that the appellants were the only persons involved in the commission of the alleged offences in the present case. 22. The minor contradictions in the prosecution case as stressed upon by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to the extrajudicial confession are not very substantial & do not carry much weight in our point of view so as to discredit the statement of PW3 Bismilla who categorically stated that when she visited the house of Mohan Lal the deceased Vijay was last seen alive in the company of the accused-appellants and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the septic tank of latrine located in the boundary walls of the house of Smt. Manju. Non production of Sarpanch, Hansraj cannot wipe out the entire prosecution evidence, more particularly in the light of testimony of PW1 Lal Chand, PW2 Kashi Ram and PW3 Smt. Bismilla corroborated by the medical evidence and recoveries effected during the course of investigation. Although PW6 Prem Kumar has been declared hostile nevertheless, he does not dispute the fact that the PW1 Lal Chand and PW2 Kashi Ram went with him to village Dulmana in his jeep in search of deceased Vijay. 23. As far as motive behind commission of the alleged offences and extramarital affair between the deceased and Smt. Manju are concerned, PW1 Lal Chand who is real brother of deceased Vijay stated that there was an affair between them, therefore, possibility of Vijay being eliminated for this reason by the appellants cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances discussed above. 24. We are also not impressed by the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the packet ‘C article ‘9’ was not having clothes of deceased Vijay, therefore, the FSL report is liable to be discarded. Absence of blood stained clothes in packet ‘C will not really matter because when examined by forensic Science Laboratory, presence of blood group ‘B’ on the clothes of the deceased was matching blood found on the Lathi and Ghota. After examination, when the clothes were sent back, perhaps the same got misplaced. Therefore, the packet ‘C was found empty. Absence of blood stained clothes in packet ‘C will not really matter because when examined by forensic Science Laboratory, presence of blood group ‘B’ on the clothes of the deceased was matching blood found on the Lathi and Ghota. After examination, when the clothes were sent back, perhaps the same got misplaced. Therefore, the packet ‘C was found empty. The fact of the matter is that the packet ‘C containing the clothes of the deceased was received by the FSL in an intact and sealed condition. 25. Thus, in view of the detailed discussion made above, we are convinced that the learned trial court has not committed any error while convicting the accused-appellants for the offences alleged in the present case. Therefore, the judgment dated 09.04.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar is upheld. The appeals filed by the accused-appellants are dismissed being bereft of any merit.