Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 593 (UTT)

SUBODH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-11-23

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 02.07.2014/ 04.07.2014, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.28 of 2009, “State vs. Subodh Kumar Sharma", by which, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC") and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine, the defaulter convict is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC in default of which, the convict is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the appellant was the husband of the deceased Smt. Meetu Sharma. The deceased was married with the appellant about 10-11 years before her death. They have two children. At the time of the incident, the appellant was living with the deceased in his in-law's house. The informant and the signatory of the inquest report (Ext. Ka 2) Mr. Mahesh Sharma (PW1) lodged an FIR (Ext. Ka 10) against the appellant through his written report (Ext Ka 1) that her niece Smt. Meetu Sharma had gone to Neelkanth with her husband Subodh Kumar Sharma on 18.05.2009. At around 3 o'clock in the evening, Subodh Sharma came back home alone. Smt. Usha Sharma (PW 11), the mother of the deceased and Divya Sharma (PW 10), the sister of the deceased, asked Subodh Sharma where is Meetu. Subodh Sharma had told that Meetu was missed at some place on the way to Neelkanth. She was searched, but in vain. When Subodh Sharma was asked again, he told that Meetu had got down on the way. In this way, he was changing his statements again and again. On the next day, dated 19.05.2009, Subodh Sharma lodged a missing report (Ext. Ka 8) of Smt. Meetu at Rishikesh Police Station. The informant further stated in his report dated 20.05.2009 (Ext. When Subodh Sharma was asked again, he told that Meetu had got down on the way. In this way, he was changing his statements again and again. On the next day, dated 19.05.2009, Subodh Sharma lodged a missing report (Ext. Ka 8) of Smt. Meetu at Rishikesh Police Station. The informant further stated in his report dated 20.05.2009 (Ext. Ka 1) that today itself it was learned that Subodh had told someone that he drove Meetu out of his way. He strangled her to death and threw her body in a pit on the way to Neelkanth. The FIR (Ext. Ka10) was registered at 21:30 hrs. on 20.05.2009 under Section 302 and Section 201 of IPC at the Police Station Lakshman Jhula. 3. Before the registration of the FIR (Ext. Ka 10), the appellant had lodged a missing report (Ext. Ka 8) of the deceased on 19.05.2009 to the effect that his wife had gone from the house towards Modern School, Jatav Basti on 18.05.2009 at 09:30 a.m. 4. During the investigation, at the behest of the appellant, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 20.05.2009 in village Jonk, situated on Neelkanth Marg. The appellant was arrested. At the instance of the appellant, a rope (Ext. 1) was recovered on 21.05.2009, by which it is said to have strangulated the deceased. The recovery memo of the rope (Ext. Ka 3) was prepared. An Indica car, which was used in the incident and whose glass was broken at two places, was seized by the Investigating Officer D.S. Panwar (PW 13). The recovery memo of the car (Ext. Ka 4) was prepared. The Investigating Officer collected the earth and one pair half heel slippers (Ext. 3) from near the dead body. The inquest proceedings and the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased were conducted on 21.05.2009. The recovered articles were sent for examination. The statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka 19) was filed. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 6. The charges under Section 302 and Section 201 of IPC were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court recorded the statements of thirteen prosecution witnesses. 7. Ka 19) was filed. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 6. The charges under Section 302 and Section 201 of IPC were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court recorded the statements of thirteen prosecution witnesses. 7. The appellant pleaded innocence and false implication in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The learned trial court appraised the evidence adduced before it and held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant under Section 302 and Section 201 of IPC. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court, the appellant appealed to this Court. 10. Heard Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel and Ms. Gaura Devi Dev, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Mr. Rohit Dhyani, the learned Brief Holders for the State. 11. Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that there was no eye-witness of the alleged offence; the chain of the circumstances of the incident is broken and not so complete as to infer the involvement of the appellant with the alleged crime; the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and the rope are highly doubtful and is quite contrary to the prosecution story that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant; the case of the prosecution is highly improbable; the statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other; the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnized in the year, 2000 and since then neither the deceased nor her family members had any complaint whatsoever against the appellant; the appellant and the deceased had been leading their life quite happily, but, on account of ulterior motive and evil designs a cock and bull story has been cooked up to implicate the appellant; the prosecution has failed to assign any motive for the alleged commission of offence by the appellant; the appellant himself lodged a missing report of her wife before lodging the FIR (Ext. Ka 10). 12. As per contra, Mr. Ka 10). 12. As per contra, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. We have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 14. This case rests on circumstantial evidence. No one had seen the assault by the appellant on the deceased. 15. It is a well established law that in cases of the circumstantial evidence, all circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence and all the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain. The chain of evidence should be 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. 16. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy these tests:- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consisted only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that it 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. (v) There must be a chain of evidence to show 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 probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. 17. On the basis of the above well-settled principles, we proceed to examine whether the appellant can be held to be guilty. 18. The deceased Smt. Meetu Sharma was the niece of PW1 Mahesh Sharma and PW2 Shiv Kumar Sharma. PW1 Mahesh Sharma is an informant of the FIR (Ext. Ka 10). He proved his written report (Ext. Ka 1). These witnesses stated that the accused Subodh Kumar Sharma was living with his children in his in-law's house. 18. The deceased Smt. Meetu Sharma was the niece of PW1 Mahesh Sharma and PW2 Shiv Kumar Sharma. PW1 Mahesh Sharma is an informant of the FIR (Ext. Ka 10). He proved his written report (Ext. Ka 1). These witnesses stated that the accused Subodh Kumar Sharma was living with his children in his in-law's house. PW1 Mahesh Sharma stated that the mother of the deceased, sister, Divya Sharma, of the deceased and Rajendra, father of the accused, also lived in that house. The house of these witnesses are located about a mile from the house of the deceased. PW 1 Mahesh Sharma has stated that the deceased had told him that the accused used to beat her up. PW 1 Mahesh Sharma was told by the mother of the deceased that the accused had taken the deceased to Neelkanth at 9 o'clock in the morning and when he came back, he was alone. She asked the accused where is Meetu, then, he had told that Meetu was missed at some place in Neelkanth. He again told the deceased's mother that Meetu had got down on the way. PW 1 Mahesh Sharma stated that he also asked the accused about the deceased. He had told him that Meetu was missed at some place in Neelkanth. According to PW 2 Shiv Kumar Sharma, at around 03:30 p.m. he got a call from his brother Mahesh Sharma, who told that Subodh Sharma had taken Meetu to Neelkanth, but, he came back home alone. He further stated that he himself went and asked the accused about Meetu, then, he told him that Meetu had got down on the way. According to these witnesses, the accused was changing his statements again and again. They stated that on the date 20th, they went to the Police Station Rishikesh. They saw that the accused was talking with an unknown person outside of the police station. The accused was telling that he had drove Meetu out of his way. He strangled her to death and threw her body in a pit on the way to Neelkanth. These witnesses deposed that after lodging the report (Ext. Ka 10), Station House Officer of the Police Station Lakshman Jhula took them to Neelkanth by-pass, where the SHO got a call. He strangled her to death and threw her body in a pit on the way to Neelkanth. These witnesses deposed that after lodging the report (Ext. Ka 10), Station House Officer of the Police Station Lakshman Jhula took them to Neelkanth by-pass, where the SHO got a call. After listening to the phone, he told that Meetu's body has been recovered at the instance of Subodh and the dead body is lying on the by-pass road. The SHO, Lakshman Jhula told them that this has been told to him by the SHO, Police Station Rishikesh over the phone. The SHO, Lakshman Jhula had taken them to the spot, where Rishikesh police and accused were present. Meetu's dead body was taken out by the Rishikesh police from the pit. The dead body of the deceased was identified by these witnesses at around 10:30 – 10:45 night. 19. PW 1 Mahesh Sharma is also a signatory of the inquest report (Ext. Ka 2). He stated that it was opined by the panches that the deceased died of strangulation. 20. According to PW 1 Mahesh Sharma and PW 2 Shiv Kumar Sharma a rope (Ext. 1), used in the commission of the offence, was recovered on 21.05.2009 at the instance of the accused from 500 meters of the spot. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka 3) whereof was prepared. 21. PW1 Mahesh Sharma and PW2 Shiv Kumar Sharma are also a signatory of the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 4) of an Indica car and the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 5) of slippers (Ext. 3). According to these witnesses, the police had seized the said Indica car from Adaitanand Marg, Rishikesh and the slippers (Ext. 3) of the deceased Meetu were found at the spot. These witnesses stated that at the time of seizure of the said Indica car, the glass of the car was found broken at two places. PW 2 Shiv Kumar Sharma deposed that one Mr. Honey was the owner of the said car and the accused had taken the deceased Meetu to Neelkanth in that car. 22. PW12 Smt. Anshu Chaudhary, the then Inspector In-Charge Police Station, Rishikesh, stated that Subodh Sharma had lodged a missing report of his wife in Police Station, Rishikesh. In the enquiry of the missing report, she had interrogated the appellant on 20.05.2009. She stated that the appellant was changing his statements again and again. 22. PW12 Smt. Anshu Chaudhary, the then Inspector In-Charge Police Station, Rishikesh, stated that Subodh Sharma had lodged a missing report of his wife in Police Station, Rishikesh. In the enquiry of the missing report, she had interrogated the appellant on 20.05.2009. She stated that the appellant was changing his statements again and again. So, the appellant was suspected. She stated that when she asked the appellant sternly, he told that his wife used to quarrel with him constantly, so in anger, he strangled her to death with a rope and he could get the body recovered. Giving full details of the incident, he told that on 18th he had returned from Uttarkashi and after returning from Uttarkashi, he had taken his wife to Neelkanth by car. Both of them had taken tea at a tea stall near Neelkanth by-pass. At that place, they quarreled again, as his wife suspected him to be involved with someone else. They did not go to Neelkanth, but, started coming back. After going a short distance, he stopped the car and sat on the back seat of the car. His wife was sitting in the front seat. He took out a rope from under the seat and strangled her with that rope. He took the car forward and dropped the dead body in the pit and threw that rope on the way. PW 12 Smt. Anshu Chaudhary deposed that the appellant further stated that when he was strangling his wife, the glass of the car was broken. He came back home and told that her wife was missed somewhere in Neelkanth. He got the car washed and gave it to his friend Honey. No one should doubt him, so, he had lodged the missing report of his wife. 23. PW 12 Smt. Anshu Chaudhary deposed that she took the appellant along with the police force in a Government vehicle and reached the place, which was mentioned by the appellant. The dead body was lying about 8-10 feet below a culvert. The corpse was seen in the light of the torch. The site plan (Ext. Ka 18) of the place of the recovery of the dead body was prepared by the Investigating Officer D.S. Panwar (PW 13). 24. The dead body was lying about 8-10 feet below a culvert. The corpse was seen in the light of the torch. The site plan (Ext. Ka 18) of the place of the recovery of the dead body was prepared by the Investigating Officer D.S. Panwar (PW 13). 24. PW 12 Smt. Anshu Chaudhary stated that the place from where the dead body was recovered was under the police station Lakshman Jhula, so, she informed the S.O. of Lakshman Jhula over the phone. The S.O. of the police station Lakshman Jhula told her that an FIR is registered against Subodh at his police station and he is also looking for Meetu. After a while, the S.O., Lakshman Jhula came to that place with police force and the informant Mahesh Sharma. The family members of the deceased also came there, who had identified the dead body. She deposed that Subodh Sharma was handed over to S.O., Lakshman Jhula. She stated that she along with her police force reached back to her police station at 2:30 p.m. and this fact is disclosed from General Diary No.4 (Ext. Ka 6). 25. PW 3 Head Constable Lakhan Singh proved the General Diary (Ext. Ka 6). 26. PW 4 Dr. Manoj Kumar Verma conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased on 21.05.2009. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka 7). He stated that a blue mark of 2.3 cm. wide and 28 cm. long was present on the front of the neck of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. He also stated that the death of the deceased was possible on 18.05.2009 between 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., if somebody would have pressed the neck of the deceased with a rope. It may be pointed out, that there was no dispute that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the testimony of the doctor on this account is not under challenge. 27. The missing report (Ext. Ka 8) was registered by PW 5 Head Constable Buddhi Singh Panwar. 28. PW 6 S.C.P. Yogendra Kumar is a scriber of chick FIR (Ext. Ka 10). 29. The deceased was niece of PW 7 Anil Sharma. 27. The missing report (Ext. Ka 8) was registered by PW 5 Head Constable Buddhi Singh Panwar. 28. PW 6 S.C.P. Yogendra Kumar is a scriber of chick FIR (Ext. Ka 10). 29. The deceased was niece of PW 7 Anil Sharma. According to this witness, he got a call from the deceased's mother on 18.05.2009, who told him that Meetu went to Neelkanth with her husband at 9 a.m. Her husband came back alone. He deposed that he himself went and asked Subodh about whereabouts of Meetu. Subodh Sharma told him that Meetu was missed, but, he again told that Meetu had got down from the car. He was changing his statements again and again. On receiving information about the dead body, he reached at the recovery site along with police of Lakshman Jhula and his brothers. In-Charge, Police Station, Rishikesh was present at the site of the recovery. Subodh Sharma was also present at that place. He stated that the dead body was identified by them. PW 7 Anil Sharma is also a signatory of the inquest report (Ext. Ka 2). 30. PW 8 Kapil Dev Sharma was the neighbor of the deceased. He stated that being a neighbor, mother of the deceased had called him and told that Meetu went to Neelkanth with her husband at 9 a.m. Her husband came back alone. He further stated that in front of him, the family members of the deceased had asked Subodh about Meetu. Subodh told them that Meetu had got down on the way. But, again he changed his version and told that she was missed somewhere on the way. PW 8 Kapil Dev Sharma stated that he also went to the place where the dead body was lying and at that time, Police Inspector of Police Station, Rishikesh was present there. 31. According to the Investigating Officer D.S. Panwar (PW 13), an information was received from Smt. Anshu Chaudhary (PW 12) on the phone at 10:30 p.m. on 20.05.2009, after which he along with Sub-Inspector Narendra Singh (PW 9) and other police personnel reached the place of recovery of the dead body of the deceased. He stated that Smt. Anshu Chaudhary (PW 12) had informed him over phone that the body was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 32. He stated that Smt. Anshu Chaudhary (PW 12) had informed him over phone that the body was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 32. PW 9 Narendra Singh has also testified supporting the Investigating Officer's statements that after receiving information from Smt. Anshu Chaudhary (PW 12), he also accompanied to the recovery site. According to the Investigating Officer (PW 13) and Narendra Singh (PW 9), the appellant was arrested at the place of the recovery of the dead body. The Investigating Officer (PW 13) and Narendra Singh (PW 9) deposed that the appellant confessed his guilt and told that he can recover the rope with which he strangled his wife. They stated that at the instance of the appellant, a rope (Ext. 1) was recovered at the crossroads on the road leading to Neelkanth. The recovery memo (Ext. Ka 3) of the rope was prepared by Narendra Singh (PW 9). They stated that an Indica car (UA08B-4414), which was used in the incident and whose glass was broken at two places, was found in Rishikesh on 23.05.2009. The recovery memo (Ext. Ka 4) of the said car was prepared by Narendra Singh (PW 9). They stated that one pair half heel slippers (Ext. 3) of the deceased was collected from near the dead body. The memo of slippers (Ext. Ka 5) was prepared by Narendra Singh (PW 9). 33. PW 10 Divya Sharma is the sister of the deceased. In her deposition, she stated that her sister died on 18.05.2009 and at that time, she (Divya Sharma), her mother, her brother-in-law Subodh Sharma (appellant), her sister Smt. Meetu (deceased), her sister's two children and her sister's father-in-law were leaving in her house. She has not supported the prosecution case and she was treated as a hostile by the prosecution. 34. PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the appellant was residing in her house. He used to scare and beat his wife. She deposed that Subodh Sharma had taken Meetu to Neelkanth in a car at 9 a.m. on 18.05.2009. He came back at 3 p.m. He had told her that Meetu had got down on the way. He again told her that she was missed. In her cross-examination, PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma has stated that Subodh was changing his statements again and again. He came back at 3 p.m. He had told her that Meetu had got down on the way. He again told her that she was missed. In her cross-examination, PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma has stated that Subodh was changing his statements again and again. She stated that she informed Mahesh Sharma (PW 1). She stated that her daughter Divya Sharma had divorced her husband Gaurav and the said divorce was given at the behest of Subodh Sharma. She deposed that her daughter Divya Sharma is leaving with Subodh Sharma. PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma was consistent in her testimony. The background in which the incident took place cannot be lost sight of. Here the evidence of PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma has been tested in the light of the background facts. Her testimony is cogent, credible, trustworthy and has a ring of truth and deserves acceptance. 35. Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that PW 10 Divya Sharma, sister of the deceased, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the chain of circumstantial evidence had failed. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. It is well settled that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his/her evidence cannot be rejected in toto. If any part of the evidence of a hostile witness is found truthful, the Court can rely on such part of his/her evidence. In Rajendra vs. State of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because of a witness, deviates from his statement, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. In Govindappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that deposition of a hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent he supported the case of the prosecution. 36. PW 10 Divya Sharma stated that her sister died on 18.05.2009 and at that time, she (Divya Sharma), her mother, her brother-in-law Subodh Sharma, her sister Smt. Meetu, her sister's two children and her sister's father-in-law were living in her house. The appellant has not cross-examined this witness. 37. 36. PW 10 Divya Sharma stated that her sister died on 18.05.2009 and at that time, she (Divya Sharma), her mother, her brother-in-law Subodh Sharma, her sister Smt. Meetu, her sister's two children and her sister's father-in-law were living in her house. The appellant has not cross-examined this witness. 37. The evidence of PW 1 Mahesh Sharma, PW 2 Shiv Kumar Sharma and PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma are corroborated by the evidence of PW 10 Divya Sharma that at the time of the incident, the appellant was residing with the deceased in her house. 38. Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that before the registration of the FIR (Ext. Ka 10), the appellant had lodged a missing report (Ext. ka 8) of her wife on 19.05.2009 to the effect that his wife had gone from her house towards Modern School, Jatav Basti on 18.05.2009 at 9:30 a.m. and this fact shows that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. 39. This fact is fully established that at the time of the incident, the appellant was residing with the deceased and her family members. According to the appellant, the deceased went towards Modern School, Jatav Basti. But, it is not the case of the appellant that he had informed any member of the family of the deceased that his wife had gone towards the Modern School from where she had not returned. The appellant had neither given any suggestion to any prosecution witness nor has made any statement in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that the deceased had gone towards the Modern School, Jatav Basti from where she had not returned. Under these circumstances, it seems clear that the appellant had lodged the missing report of his wife with intention of saving himself. 40. Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that it is a settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances. 41. Under these circumstances, it seems clear that the appellant had lodged the missing report of his wife with intention of saving himself. 40. Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that it is a settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances. 41. It is true that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused, but would apply to cases where prosecution had succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused, by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts succeed to offer any explanation, to drive the Court to drew a different inference. 42. PW 11 Smt. Usha Sharma, mother of the deceased, was consistent in her testimony that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together. There is a burden on the appellant to give an explanation about what happened after they left the house of the deceased. No explanation was given about the events of 18.05.2009 after they left from the house of the deceased. In the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and alleged false implication. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act imposes an obligation on the appellant to explain as to what happened after they were last seen together. There is no such circumstances on the record that why these statements of the witnesses should not be accepted that the deceased had gone with the appellant for the last time, from where she did not return, while the statements of the witnesses are found natural, reliable, true and correct version of events. Therefore, the onus of disproving and contradicting the same shifted upon the appellant, which onus he has failed to discharge. When the entire material was put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant simply denied the same but has not led any evidence in his defence on this aspect. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which conclusively links the appellant with the offence. 43. When the entire material was put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant simply denied the same but has not led any evidence in his defence on this aspect. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which conclusively links the appellant with the offence. 43. The prosecution case is further corroborated by the recoveries of the dead body of the deceased and murder weapon “Cord", used for strangulation. 44. Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the confession of the appellant made before the police is inadmissible. It is true that no confession made by any person while he was in custody of the police shall be proved against him, but, even when an accused being in the custody of police makes a statement that reveals some information leading to the recovery of material or discovery of any fact concerning to the alleged offence, such statement can be proved against him. The recovery is a part of investigation and permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused, and this is admissible in law. In Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan and others, (1972) 4 SCC 659 , the Hon'ble Apex Court analyzed the concept, use and evidentiary value of recovered articles and held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits proof of so much of the information which is given by persons accused of an offence when in the custody of a police officer as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered irrespective of whether such information amounts to a confession or not, under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer whether in custody or not can be proved as against the accused. But Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of a proviso to these sections and a statement, even by way of confession, which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible as evidence against accused in the circumstances stated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 45. But Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of a proviso to these sections and a statement, even by way of confession, which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible as evidence against accused in the circumstances stated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 45. Analyzing the earlier decisions, in Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed up the various requirements of the Section 27 of the Evidence Act as follows : (1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) There upon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. 46. In Madhu vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 , 2022 (1) NCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rationale behind Section 27 of the Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiate the truth of the confessional statement and since it is true that a Court must endeavour to search Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 47. In the instant matter, the recovery of the rope made, when the appellant was in custody, has been established. The recovery is founded on the statements of the disclosure. 47. In the instant matter, the recovery of the rope made, when the appellant was in custody, has been established. The recovery is founded on the statements of the disclosure. On a studied scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding this recovery, we do not find anything that this recovery has really not been made on the information of the appellant and has been planted by the police. 48. It has been pointed by the learned counsel for appellant that there are major defects in the investigation as no efforts made by the Investigating Officer, besides others, to take photograph of the Indica car no.UA08B-4414 and no efforts made to examine Honey, the alleged owner of the said car. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that due to the defective investigation, the conviction is liable to be set aside. 49. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is required to be kept in mind that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. It would not be just to acquit the appellant solely as a result of defective investigation. 50. In Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect, to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. 51. It is well settled that even if the investigation is improper or defective the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. In the instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant has not placed any material before us to show that any prejudice was caused to him for the reason of defective investigation. The said defective investigation or laches in the investigation does not go to the root of the prosecution case. 52. The argument of Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that in absence of motive on the part of the appellant to cause death, benefit of reasonable doubt should be given to the appellant. 53. The said defective investigation or laches in the investigation does not go to the root of the prosecution case. 52. The argument of Mr. P.C. Petshali, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that in absence of motive on the part of the appellant to cause death, benefit of reasonable doubt should be given to the appellant. 53. In Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani vs. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 323 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that in order to bring home the guilt of an accused, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive. The existence of motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the witnesses appears to be truthful and convincing, failure to prove the motive is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The law on this aspect is well-settled. 54. In G. Parashwanath vs. State of Karnataka, 2011 (1) CCSC 157 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence. The absence of motive, however, puts the Court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof. There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. Effect of absence of motive would depend on the facts of each case. 55. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with crime because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Any possibility of bias or predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 56. In Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgment in Inder Singh and another Vs. 56. In Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgment in Inder Singh and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161 , wherein it has been held, “Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect." 57. In State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and another, (2008) 17 SCC 587 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it has been said time and again by this Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. 58. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. 59. In Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory tower. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case, discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim “let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals. 60. The chain of circumstances proved on the record against the appellant is as under:- (i) At the time of the incident, the appellant was living with his wife, the deceased, in her house. (ii) The appellant used to beat her because she suspected that the appellant had relation with other women. (iii) The appellant had taken the deceased to Neelkanth from her house. (iv) The appellant and the deceased were last seen together. (v) The appellant has failed to explain as to what happened after the appellant and the deceased were last seen together at 9 a.m. on 18.05.2009. (vi) On asking the appellant about the deceased, he was changing his version again and again. (vii) The appellant had lodged a false missing report of the deceased. (viii) The dead body of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the appellant. (ix) The cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. (x) PW 4 Dr. Manoj Kumar Verma conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and according to him, the death of the deceased was possible between 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 18.05.2009, if someone would have pressed the neck of the deceased with a rope. (xi) The rope was recovered at the instance of the appellant. (xii) The recovery of the rope was founded on the disclosure statement of the appellant. 61. The aforesaid chain of circumstances against the appellant is of conclusive nature. (xi) The rope was recovered at the instance of the appellant. (xii) The recovery of the rope was founded on the disclosure statement of the appellant. 61. The aforesaid chain of circumstances against the appellant is of conclusive nature. There is a complete chain of circumstances which show that in all human probabilities, the offence has been committed by the appellant. Therefore, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, we concur with the learned trial court. It is not a fit case where impugned judgment requires any interference. 62. For the reasons, as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed accordingly.