JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi for the appellant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Sessions Trial No. 325 of 2003 whereby the appellant, namely, Saroj Kumar Tiwari, has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced as follows: imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- coupled with a default sentence of one year additional R.I. under section 302 IPC and two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- coupled with a default sentence of six months additional imprisonment under section 201 IPC. However, co-accused, namely, Anju Tiwari and Munni Devi, were acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Introductory facts 3. A written report (Ex.Ka-1) was lodged by PW-1, a village Chowkidar, on 22.05.2000 at 11.30 hrs, at P.S. Saini, district Kaushambi, giving rise to case crime no. 145 of 2000. It was alleged in the written report that PW-1 (the informant) received information from villagers, at about 10 am, that a dead body of an unknown person was noticed lying in the grove of Daya Ram Dhobi near Habbu Nagar, Dubana; when PW-1 went there he saw that a headless body, without clothes, was lying under a Mahua tree in that grove. The chik report (Ex.Ka-5) and G.D. entry (Ex.Ka-6) thereof was prepared by PW-6. 4. Inquest was conducted at the spot on 22.05.2000 at 13.55 hrs of which an inquest report (Ex.Ka-2) was prepared by S.I. Panna Lal (not examined) which was proved by PW-2 Rajkumar. The chik report (Ex.Ka-5) and G.D. entry (Ex.Ka-6) thereof was prepared by PW-6. 4. Inquest was conducted at the spot on 22.05.2000 at 13.55 hrs of which an inquest report (Ex.Ka-2) was prepared by S.I. Panna Lal (not examined) which was proved by PW-2 Rajkumar. The condition in which the body was noticed at the time of inquest is reported as follows: ^^n'kk 'ko & flj tkfuc iwŒ iSj o nf{k.k ck;ka gkFk dsgquh ls cka;s eqM+k cka;s lhus ij nkfguk gkFk nkfgus eqM+k nkfguh lhus ij nkfguh Vkax nkfguh vksj eqM+k ck;ka iSj lh/kk 'ko cka;h djoV uXu voLFkk esa iM+k gSA gqfy;k 'ko & xnZu ls Åij dk fgLlk xk;c] xksjk jax ,dgjk etcwr ftLe ÅapkbZ 5&1@4 QhV mez yxHkx 25 o"kZA pksV 'ko & 'ko dks myV dj ns[k x;k] fuEu pksVsa gS%& ¼1½ xnZu ls Åij dk fgLlk xk;c gS ¼2½ nkfguh cktw ij /klk gqvk [kwu vkywn ?kko ¼3½ dVk gqvk gFksyh dk ?kko ¼4½ cka;k gkFk--------------[kwu vkywn ¼5½ cka;h gkFk ij dVk gqvk [kwu vkywn ?kkoA** 5. Autopsy was conducted on 23.05.2000 at about 5 P.M. by Dr. Yatindra Kumar Pathak, PW-8, who prepared autopsy report (Ex.Ka-13). In the autopsy report, following details were mentioned: External examination: A male body of well built, Rigor mortis is passed off from whole body, abdomen is distended. Body is in early stage of decomposition. Ante-mortem injuries: 1. Head and neck is separated from thorax by sharp weapon. 2. A lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. Muscle deep in right upper arm. 3. An incised wound 4 cm. x ½ cm. in front of right hand. 4. A lacerated wound in area of 4 cm. x 2 cm. muscle deep in front of left hand. 5. A lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. in front of top of right shoulder. 6. An incised wound 8 cm. x ½ cm. in size in back of left forearm. Cause of death: Shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Time since death About two days 6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) recovered slipper of one leg of the deceased red in colour and light yellow colour watch strap of which recovery memo (Ex.Ka-3) was prepared. in size in back of left forearm. Cause of death: Shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Time since death About two days 6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) recovered slipper of one leg of the deceased red in colour and light yellow colour watch strap of which recovery memo (Ex.Ka-3) was prepared. The I.O also showed recovered of a semi-circular sickle having wooden handle measuring six fingers (angul); a shirt with full sleeves having blue stripes and a blue coloured jeans, blood-stained, on the pointing out of appellant (Saroj Kumar Tiwari) of which recovery memo (Ex.Ka-10) was prepared. Investigation of Case Crime No. 145 of 2000 was completed and chargesheet (Ex.Ka-12) was submitted by CO, namely, D.P. Shukla, PW-7 against Saroj Kumar Tiwari (appellant), Smt. Munni Devi and Anju Tiwari under Section 302/201 IPC. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session giving rise to S.T. No. 325 of 2003. On 17.05.2004, accused persons, namely, Saroj Kumar Tiwari, Smt. Munni Devi and Anju Tiwari were charged for offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The trial court examined nine prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shyam Lal - the informant; PW-2 Rajkumar - witness of inquest; PW-3 Daya Ram - another witness of the inquest, PW-4 Bhuvneshwar Tiwari - uncle of the deceased, PW-5 Awadh Kishor Singh - neighbour of the deceased residing at Patna; PW-6 Surya Mani Pandey - the constable who prepared the chik report and GD entry of Case Crime No. 145 of 2000; PW-7 D.P. Shukla, C.O. Crime, the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 145 of 2000; PW-8 Dr. Yatindra Kumar Pathak who conducted the autopsy and PW-9 Constable Ramdev who proved the signatures of S.I. Panna Lal (since dead) on the inquest report and papers prepared in connection therewith for autopsy. Prosecution Evidence 8. The testimony of above mentioned prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as under. 9. PW-1 Shyam Lal - Informant: He stated that the incident occurred four years ago. At around 10 a.m. some villagers told him that a dead body has been lying beneath a tree in the grove of Daya Ram Dhobi, he went there and saw a beheaded dead-body of an unknown person, without clothes, lying there. He gave information at the police station. At around 10 a.m. some villagers told him that a dead body has been lying beneath a tree in the grove of Daya Ram Dhobi, he went there and saw a beheaded dead-body of an unknown person, without clothes, lying there. He gave information at the police station. He proved his thumb impression over the written report which was marked as Ex.Ka-1. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he did not carry a written complaint to the police station. He gave oral information regarding discovery of dead body. At the police station, constable took his thumb impression over Ex.Ka-1. At the time when he put his thumb impression, the paper was blank and nothing was written on it. He arrived at the police station in between 10-11 a.m. He stayed at the police station for two hours. When he was present at the police station, neither S.I. nor anyone inquired from him and no statement was recorded. After two hours when constable permitted him, he returned from the police station to the place where the dead body was lying. He again visited the place of incident at around 1 p.m. at that time, the dead body was not there and neither police nor any person was available there. When he saw the dead body, it was without clothes. Immediately thereafter, he stated that it had lower under-garment. He also stated that when he arrived near the dead body, there was no article lying beside it and there was no whisper in the village as to whose dead body it was. 10. PW-2 Rajkumar - witness of inquest: He admitted his signature on the inquest report (Ex.Ka-2) and memo of recovery (Ex.Ka-3). He reiterated about noticing a beheaded dead body lying under a tree in the grove of Daya Ram Dhobi wearing under-garments (i.e. baniyan and chaddhi). He stated that S.I. Panna Lal sealed the dead body and conducted inquest in his presence. During his presence, S.I. did not collect any article or earth. There was no article lying near the dead body, only blood was spread nearby. He was not sure whether the blood spread there was collected by the S.I. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he arrived at the spot at about 12 noon. There were many police personnels available at that place. Members of public were few. There was no article lying near the dead body, only blood was spread nearby. He was not sure whether the blood spread there was collected by the S.I. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he arrived at the spot at about 12 noon. There were many police personnels available at that place. Members of public were few. S.I. received his signatures over a blank paper and informed him that this paper is for sealing the dead body. S.I. did not collect any slipper or strap of watch in his presence and those items were not noticed by him there. PW-2 further stated that S.I. received his signatures over 3-4 blank papers and nothing was written over the same. 11. PW-3 Daya Ram - another witness of the inquest: In his statement in chief, he stated that about four or four and half years ago, a beheaded dead body was found in his grove. Neither he saw the dead body nor the S.I. sealed the dead body or performed inquest in his presence. After looking at the papers, he denied his thumb impression thereon. He stated that he is literate and can sign. On the application of the prosecution, the witness was declared hostile and prosecution was allowed to cross examine him. During cross-examination by the prosecution, PW-3 stated that with regard to the incident, S.I. never recorded his statement. On being confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. he denied having made any such statement. He also denied the suggestion that he has colluded with the accused. 12. PW-4 Bhuvneshwar Tiwari - Uncle of the deceased: In his examination in chief, PW-4 stated that the deceased Pranesh Kumar Tiwari is his nephew. At the time of his murder, his age was near about 25 years. His nephew was an English teacher in Anishabad English Convent School. In the year 1998, his nephew (the deceased) performed court marriage with the daughter of Saroj Tiwari (appellant before the court). Thereafter, again, marriage ceremony was performed in a temple at Patna in the year 2000. That marriage ceremony was attended by both sides in a congenial atmosphere and both sides happily returned to their respective homes. After that, Pranesh (the deceased) told his mother that he will go to his Sasural at Barkhi and shall have Sheetla Maa Darshan on 21.05.2000. That marriage ceremony was attended by both sides in a congenial atmosphere and both sides happily returned to their respective homes. After that, Pranesh (the deceased) told his mother that he will go to his Sasural at Barkhi and shall have Sheetla Maa Darshan on 21.05.2000. PW-4 stated that he and few others went to Patna Railway Station to see off the deceased. After seeing off the deceased they returned to their respective houses. Whereafter, on 25.05.2000, Lal Bahadur Singh, Police Station Saini, showed one identity card to inquire whether that person is known to PW-4. PW-4 acknowledged that it was of his nephew. The police then informed PW-4 that that person has been murdered within the jurisdiction of Police Station Saini. The police personnel thereafter returned. On getting that information, PW-4, Geeta Devi (mother of Pranesh) and Awadh Kishor (PW-5) arrived at Police Station Saini. At the police station, SHO showed clothes, sickle - the murder weapon, rope, pant and blood stained clothes and red slippers along with album. On seeing those articles PW-4 identified them as that of his nephew. He also recognised a Kada of his nephew Pranesh Tiwari. PW-4 stated that Pranesh Kumar Tiwari has been murdered by Saroj Kumar Tiwari, his wife Munni Devi and his daughter Anju Devi. After narrating all that, PW-4 stated that before this marriage, Pranesh Tiwari was married to another girl who was insane and handicapped. The family members of that insane girl did not object to his remarriage therefore, Pranesh entered into a second marriage. PW-4 stated that Saroj Tiwari knew that it was the second marriage of Pranesh yet it was performed in a most harmonious atmosphere. PW-4 stated that when his nephew came with his wife and in-laws on 22nd, he was murdered by them. A bundle of clothes etc was opened before the court. Inside that, blue stripe shirt, blood stained jeans pant, one red colour slippers and one sickle were kept which were shown to PW-4. He identified the clothes as that of Pranesh Kumar Tiwari and the same were made material exhibits. A second bundle was also de-sealed before the court wherein two clean pant-shirt were there. PW-4 spotted and identified these clothes as that of Pranesh and they were marked material exhibits. Another bundle opened had a small Khaki colour envelop with one coin of Rs. 5 and one coin of Rs. A second bundle was also de-sealed before the court wherein two clean pant-shirt were there. PW-4 spotted and identified these clothes as that of Pranesh and they were marked material exhibits. Another bundle opened had a small Khaki colour envelop with one coin of Rs. 5 and one coin of Rs. 2 with two Rs. 1 coins and two coins of 50 paisa. Two separate boxes were also opened, one was having blood stained earth and the other box was empty. PW-4 proved his signatures on a memorandum regarding showing of certain articles of the deceased for identification. The memorandum was marked as Ex.Ka-4. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that when he arrived at the police station, he was shown two bundles. In one bundle, blood stained clothes, sickle, nylon rope, slippers and in another bundle, two pants and two shirts were there. In next bundle, there was nothing except two shirts. At that time, these bundles were sealed. PW-4 expressed his inability to state as to how many papers were signed by him. PW-4 also stated in his cross-examination that when these bundles were shown to him at the police station, there were no outsiders except police personnel. The papers signed by him were not bearing any other signature except of Awadh Kishor. In respect of first marriage of Pranesh Kumar, PW-4 stated that he can not tell in which season the first marriage of Pranesh Kumar was solemnised though the second marriage was performed just 2-4 months after first marriage. In the year 1998, when Anju Devi came for the first time after marriage, she stayed for 15 days in her in-laws house. At that time, the first wife was not there. She was at her native place. After 1998, Anju Devi never came to stay with her in-laws. PW-4 stated that his house is 52 kilometres away from Patna in the village. PW-4’s family and Pranesh’s entire family reside in the village. Pranesh use to reside in a room provided by the institution where he used to teach. Nobody of PW-4’s family resided with him. Pranesh Kumar used to visit the village every Sunday. One brother of PW-4, namely, Brij Nandan Tiwari was residing in a building of custom department whereas PW-4 and his family resided in the village. Pranesh use to reside in a room provided by the institution where he used to teach. Nobody of PW-4’s family resided with him. Pranesh Kumar used to visit the village every Sunday. One brother of PW-4, namely, Brij Nandan Tiwari was residing in a building of custom department whereas PW-4 and his family resided in the village. On 16.05.2000, Pranesh informed that he would be going to his in-laws village on 21.05.2000 and had requested PW-4 and his family to be at the railway station. On a specific question as to whether PW-4 used to see off Pranesh whenever he departed, PW-4 stated that it was not a custom/habit to come to the railway station to see him off but on 21.05.2000, it was felt necessary to see him off therefore, they went to the railway station in the morning at about 5 a.m. PW-4 then clarified that when they reached Patna Station, Pranesh had met them outside the station. After meeting Pranesh, they left. Outside the station, Pranesh was alone. PW-4 stated that neither he met Saroj Kumar Tiwari nor he met his wife or daughter at the railway station. PW-4 stated that after getting information from the police on 25th regarding Pranesh’s death, they left for Saini on 29th by Toofan (train) in the evening and reached Sirathu next day morning at 5 o'clock. From there they went straightaway to police station Saini. They reached Saini police station at about 6.30 a.m. Clothes etc. were shown at nine o'clock. They remained at the police station till 11 o'clock. After 11 o'clock they returned. Between 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock, PW-4 met the I.O. There, PW-4 and Awadh Kishore signed two or three papers but Geeta Devi did not sign any paper. The village where the deceased was married was known from before but, that day, it was not considered appropriate to visit the village. Saroj Kumar used to work in the Agriculture Department of the government at Patna. PW-4 denied the suggestions that on 21.5.2000, Pranesh Kumar along with his father-in-law Saroj Tiwari, wife and mother-in-law did not leave for Saini; and that Pranesh Kumar had gone to Fatehpur alone on 21.5.2000 to attend his friend's wedding. PW-4 stated that he does not know whether Saroj Kumar Tiwari had told Pranesh that after attending the wedding, he should meet him in the village on 24.5.2000. PW-4 stated that he does not know whether Saroj Kumar Tiwari had told Pranesh that after attending the wedding, he should meet him in the village on 24.5.2000. PW-4 denied the suggestion that Saroj Kumar Tiwari remained at Patna on 22.05.2000 and did government work in his office at Patna on 22-5-2000. PW-4 stated that he does not know that when Saroj Kumar Tiwari reached his village on 24th, the police arrested him. PW-4 denied the suggestion that the clothes shown in the bundle were the clothes brought by the police personnel, who came to inform PW-4 at Patna, from the village house to show a false recovery. He also denied the suggestion that Pranesh Kumar was killed and robbed by unknown miscreants while he was returning alone to his in-laws' house after attending the wedding. PW-4 also denied the suggestion that Saroj Kumar Tiwari did not commit murder of Pranesh but was implicated on the basis of suspicion. He also denied the suggestion that Pranesh did not marry anyone other than Anju Devi. 13. PW-5 Awadh Kishor Singh - Neighbour of the deceased residing at Patna - He stated he knows Pranesh Kumar Tiwari who was a resident of his village and a teacher at Girdhar Niwas Patna; he had married a mentally retarded girl in the year 1995 but, on the basis of mutual understanding and panchayat, that marriage was dissolved. PW-5 had heard that Pranesh had a second marriage. The second marriage was solemnized in Patan Mandir at Patna with the daughter of Saroj Kumar Tiwari. Saroj Tiwari was a resident of Kaushambi district in U.P. After few days of marriage, it came to his knowledge on 20.5.2000 that Pranesh was going to his in-laws place at village Happu Nagar, P.S. Saini, district Kaushambi. Pranesh Tiwari was dropped at Patna Junction by his uncle and his mother. PW-5 himself did not witness it, but Pranesh’s uncle told him that Pranesh’s father-in-law Saroj Tiwari and Saroj Tiwari's wife and their daughter were there. On 25.05.2000, UP Police arrived and showed some photo identity cards and asked him whether they knew that person. PW-5 was also told that he has been murdered. Thereafter, Bhuvneshwar Tiwari and PW-5 left Patna on 29.05.2000 and they reached Saini Police station on 30.05.2000. On 25.05.2000, UP Police arrived and showed some photo identity cards and asked him whether they knew that person. PW-5 was also told that he has been murdered. Thereafter, Bhuvneshwar Tiwari and PW-5 left Patna on 29.05.2000 and they reached Saini Police station on 30.05.2000. After reaching the police station, the Inspector showed them some articles i.e. clothes, rope, slipper, sickle (hansiya) and inquired whether they could recognise those articles. Pranesh was seen wearing one of those clothes few days ago. During cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he is a teacher at Barh. At the time of occurrence, he was working as a teacher. The distance between Barh and Patna is around 64 KM. There is a railway station at Barh. The distance of Barh to Rana Bigha is 4 KM. There is a metalled road from Barh to Rana Bigha. Twice a week, PW-5 used to visit Patna. He did not know in which school Pranesh Kumar Tiwari was a teacher. He also did not know as to in which house in Patna he used to live. PW-5 further stated that he never saw Saroj Tiwari in Patna. He stated that he has not seen Saroj Tiwari till date. PW-5 stated that first marriage of Pranesh Tiwari was solemnised after his consent. Four years after the first marriage, the second marriage of Pranesh Tiwari was solemnised. PW-5 did not participate in the second marriage of Pranesh Kumar. But he had heard that the second marriage was solemnised at Patan temple in Patna. He further stated that Bhuvaneshwar Tiwari and he left for U.P. by Toofan Express. They reached Sirathu Railway Station next day at 4-5 am. They reached P.S. Saini by about 7-8 am. There, the sub-inspector recorded his statement as also of Bhuvaneshwar Tiwari. In respect of Pranesh Kumar’s second marriage, PW-5 stated that it was solemnized after three years of the first marriage; that he does not remember whether Pranesh Kumar’s second wife ever visited the village; that he neither saw nor heard of second wife of Pranesh visiting the village. There, the sub-inspector recorded his statement as also of Bhuvaneshwar Tiwari. In respect of Pranesh Kumar’s second marriage, PW-5 stated that it was solemnized after three years of the first marriage; that he does not remember whether Pranesh Kumar’s second wife ever visited the village; that he neither saw nor heard of second wife of Pranesh visiting the village. He denied the suggestions (a) that he never visited the police station Saini to see the articles; (b) that the constable who had visited his village had obtained Bhuvaneshwar Tiwari’s and his signature on a blank paper; (c) that no articles were shown to him at PS Saini and (d) that whatever statement he has given before the court has been tutored by government advocate Shri T.C. Kesarwani. 14. PW-6 Suryamani Pandey - Chik maker - He proved the registration of the FIR, preparation of the Chik Report and GD Entry thereof. During cross-examination, he stated that the complainant had come alone to the police station to lodge the report. He had brought a scribed report though he did not mention as to who scribed it. The S.H.O. was not present at the time of registration of the FIR. The original chik was sent to the C.O. Office on the next day. 15. PW-7 D.P. Shukla - Investigating Officer - He stated that on 22.05.2000, he was posted as the Inspector-in-charge, P.S. Saini. On that day, Case Crime No. 145/2000 u/s. 302, 201 I.P.C. was registered at the police-station on the basis of written complaint made by PW-1. On 22.05.2000, he prepared C.D. and took copy of the chik, copy of the report, recorded statement of the complainant, statement of the witnesses of the inquest report and tried to identify the dead body. After preparing the inquest report, he lifted one slipper, strap of watch and blood stained earth from the spot. On 24.05.2000 he arrested the accused persons i.e. Saroj Kumar Tiwari, Smt. Munni Tiwari and Anju Tiwari on the basis of information received from an informer. After their arrest they confessed their guilt and disclosed the name of the deceased as Pranesh Kumar S/o Late Chandra Bhushan Tiwari R/o Rana Beegha, P.S. Barh, district-Patna, Bihar. PW-7 also got the murder weapon i.e. the sickle (blood stained) recovered at the instance of Saroj Tiwari from the house of his Behnoi (brother in law) Sapan Kumar. After their arrest they confessed their guilt and disclosed the name of the deceased as Pranesh Kumar S/o Late Chandra Bhushan Tiwari R/o Rana Beegha, P.S. Barh, district-Patna, Bihar. PW-7 also got the murder weapon i.e. the sickle (blood stained) recovered at the instance of Saroj Tiwari from the house of his Behnoi (brother in law) Sapan Kumar. It was hidden in a haystick kept in a room. He also recovered blood-stained clothes of the deceased, suitcase and railway ticket from the same room and recovery-memo of these articles were prepared. On 22.5.2000, the inspection of the scene of occurrence was carried out at the instance of the complainant and site-plan was prepared, which was marked as Ext.Ka-7. He also prepared site plans of the place from where he recovered murder-weapon sickle and nylon rope and clothes of deceased Pranesh Kumar, which were marked Ex.Ka-8 and Ex.Ka-9. Recovery-memo of the murder-weapon and blood stained clothes was proved by him as Ext.Ka-10 and recovery-memo of nylon rope and other clothes was proved as Ext.Ka-11. PW-7 stated that medical examination of accused Saroj Tivari was got done; that the medical-report is attached with CD. On 27.5.2000, Lal Bahadur Singh was sent with appropriate direction to inform family of the deceased Pranesh Kumar Tiwari and collect evidence. On 30.5.2000, statement of the constable who was sent to inform the family of the deceased and show photos was recorded. The details of the information received from him was entered in the case-diary and statements of the other witnesses were recorded. Statements of Shri Bhuwaneshwar Tivari, Smt. Geeta Devi, Awadh Kishor and others were recorded. On 2.6.2000, C.D. No. 5 was prepared in which details of original P.M. report and inquest-report were mentioned. Statements of Dr. Awasthi P.H.C. Sirathu and Constable Narendra were recorded and materials were dispatched to Forensic Lab Lucknow for examination. Whereafter, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons after investigation. Charge-sheet was marked as Ext.Ka-12. During cross-examination, he stated that he arrested the accused on 24.05.2000 on the basis of tip given by an informer. He further stated that witness Jainul had informed that it was a matter of discussion in the village that Saroj Tewari, his wife, daughter and son-in-law had come from Saini to Daranagar by Tempo in the evening and after getting off, they walked on foot and that the dead body is of their son-in-law. He further stated that witness Jainul had informed that it was a matter of discussion in the village that Saroj Tewari, his wife, daughter and son-in-law had come from Saini to Daranagar by Tempo in the evening and after getting off, they walked on foot and that the dead body is of their son-in-law. The witness Jainul had also stated that on 21.5.2000, at 8.00 p.m. he saw Saroj Tewari, his wife, daughter and a boy aged around 25 years getting off the tempo at Daranagar and going on foot to their house. PW-7 however admitted that he has not made Jainul a witness in the case. PW-7 stated that witnesses had disclosed to him that the accused had come to attend thirteenth day rituals and that they have murdered their son-in-law. On the basis of this information, he arrested the accused and collected evidence. PW-7 stated that during investigation, he recorded statement of Gaya Ram, Ram Naresh Tripathi, Dwarika Prasad and the village Pradhan Mayawati on 22.5.2000. These witnesses also stated about discussion in the village that the accused have murdered their son-inlaw. On the basis of this information, the accused were arrested for interrogation and the weapon of murder was recovered. He proved various seizure memos but admitted that the recovered material is not before him in the court. He denied the suggestion that he did not recover weapon of murder on the pointing out of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he managed to bring the clothes by sending a constable to show a false recovery. He also denied the suggestion that he has purposely not mentioned names of public witnesses of the recovery memo in the charge-sheet. PW-7 stated that he does not remember whether any identity card of the deceased was found or not. Then he stated that no identity card of the deceased was found. Rather, photographs of the deceased were sent to his home through the constable. PW-7 denied the suggestions (a) that entire investigation was bogus and a false charge-sheet has been submitted; (b) that the recoveries have been fabricated and (c) that all the parchas have been fabricated while sitting at the police station and the papers have been back dated. 16. PW-8 Dr. Yatindra Kumar Pathak - Autopsy Surgeon - He proved the autopsy report details of which we have noticed above. 16. PW-8 Dr. Yatindra Kumar Pathak - Autopsy Surgeon - He proved the autopsy report details of which we have noticed above. In respect of the internal examination, he stated that there was no semi-digested food in the stomach; the stomach was empty; small intestine was half-filled and large intestine too was semi-filled. There was no mark of circumcision on penis. The death could have occurred on 21.05.2000 at 9:30 pm. During cross-examination, he stated that he received the dead body on 23.05.2000 at 1:10 pm in the mortuary. Documents relating to inquest report were received. The dead body was received as unknown. He did not get videography of the postmortem examination. He noticed two incised wounds on the body of the deceased. Those could be caused by a knife. Head of the deceased was severed off. This may be caused with a heavy and sharp cutting weapon such as farsa and gandasa. It is not possible to cause it with a sickle used for cutting the grass. The body had started decomposing. The injury might be 2½ days old but not 3 days. It is likely to be of the morning of 21.05.2000. No semi-digested food was found in the stomach. It is wrong to state that he prepared the postmortem report at the instance of his subordinate. 17. PW-9 Ramdev - Constable - He proved the signature of S.I. Panna Lal on the inquest report and other papers relating to dispatch of the body for autopsy. 18. It be noted that during the pendency of the trial a serologist report dated 13.09.2000 (Ex.Ka-19) was produced as per which, 8 articles were sent for determining presence/ absence of human blood. These were: (1) bloodstained earth; (2) plain earth; (3) Chappal (slipper); (4) watch strap; (5) Coins; (6) piece of cloth; (7) shirt; (8) Jeans pant; (9) Hansiya/sickle with butt. Except coin, blood was found on each article. In piece of cloth and shirt, human blood was found. In rest of the articles blood had disintegrated therefore, its origin could not be ascertained. With respect to the articles where blood of human origin could be found, the blood group could not be ascertained as sample was found unfit for such test. Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. 19. In piece of cloth and shirt, human blood was found. In rest of the articles blood had disintegrated therefore, its origin could not be ascertained. With respect to the articles where blood of human origin could be found, the blood group could not be ascertained as sample was found unfit for such test. Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. 19. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to Saroj Kumar Tiwari and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.05.2013, 25.11.2013 and 15.04.2014. In his statement made on 09.05.2013, the appellant admitted that his daughter Anju had married Pranesh Kumar but denied the remaining allegations. The fact of recovery of blood-stained earth; weapon of assault, nylon rope and site plans prepared in respect thereof were put vide question no. 8. The appellant denied those recoveries and claimed that they are totally fabricated; no recovery was made at his pointing out. On being questioned as to why he has been implicated, he stated that he has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. In response to the question as to what he has to say, appellant stated that at the time of the incident he was working as a store assistant in the Agriculture Department at Patna. On 21.5.2000 he was on duty. His son-in-law Pranesh, on 21.05.2000 left Patna to go to Fatehpur to attend marriage of his friend. Appellant did not accompany him. When appellant came home on 23.05.2000, police arrested him. On 25.11.2013, the forensic report Ex.Ka-19 was put to him. In response to which, the appellant stated that he has nothing to say. On 15.04.2014 when another statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he reiterated what he had stated earlier and also claimed that the forensic report is not admissible. Defence Evidence 20. After the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded, four defence witnesses, namely Jainul Abdeen DW-1; Jabar Ali DW-2; Sapan Kumar Mishra DW-3 and Awadh Kishor Sharma DW-4, were examined. Their testimony in brief is noticed below. 21. DW-1 Jainul Abdin - Note: This witness according to I.O. had informed the I.O. that the deceased had come with the appellant and the other co-accused and they were noticed alighting together from a Tempo. DW-1 stated that he is acquainted with Saroj Tiwari of Habbu Nagar for last 20-25 years. Their testimony in brief is noticed below. 21. DW-1 Jainul Abdin - Note: This witness according to I.O. had informed the I.O. that the deceased had come with the appellant and the other co-accused and they were noticed alighting together from a Tempo. DW-1 stated that he is acquainted with Saroj Tiwari of Habbu Nagar for last 20-25 years. The distance of Saroj Tiwari’s village is 3¼ km from his village. He never met children of Saroj Tiwari, nor he knows about them. They do not live here. They have been living in Patna for 30-35 years. He stated that neither 12-13 years ago nor ever, he saw Saroj Tiwari and his children going to their home after getting off from the tempo at Daranagar; neither he has knowledge about recovery of the dead body from an orchard in the village of Saroj Tiwari nor he heard that the dead body was of Saroj Tiwari’s son-in-law. He stated that he has been Block Pramukh from 1988 to 1994 and from 2000 to 2005. The villagers had told him that Saroj Tiwari has been arrested. He stated that no police officer recorded his statement nor had interrogated him regarding the case in which Saroj Tiwari was arrested. During cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he has not received any summon or notice from the court for recording his statement; that he is deposing at the request of Saroj Kumar Tiwari; that he is unaware about the murder of Pranesh and he is also unaware that 13 years ago, a dead body was found lying in the grove of Daya Ram. DW-1 also stated that he does not know Anju Tiwari daughter of Saroj Tiwari; he is not aware about the marriage of Anju Tiwari and that he was never ever interrogated by the police of police station Saini. Note: DW-1 was not confronted with any of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 22. DW-2 Zabar Ali - Note: He is a witness of the seizure memos (Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11) of weapon of assault, blood stained shirt and trouser, clothes etc. Note: DW-1 was not confronted with any of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 22. DW-2 Zabar Ali - Note: He is a witness of the seizure memos (Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11) of weapon of assault, blood stained shirt and trouser, clothes etc. He stated that he knows Saroj Tiwari who is of his own village; Saroj Tiwari had been residing at Patna for last 32 to 35 years; but used to visit his village where he has his own house and land; 13 years ago, he heard that a beheaded dead body was found in a grove of his village, he never went there; he did not have information as to whose body it was; it was not heard by DW-1 that the dead body was of the son-in-law of Saroj Tiwari. He denied that Saroj Tiwari handed over the blood stained sickle and blood stained clothes such as pant and shirt, nylon rope to the police. The police never went to the house of Saroj Tiwari along with him. DW-1, however, accepted his signatures on Ex.Ka-10 and Ex.Ka-11. But stated that his signatures over the Ex.Ka-10 and Ex.Ka-11, were obtained by I.O. in front of the house of the Principal and when he inquired about that, the police personnel informed that nothing is serious and, therefore, he signed the papers. DW-2 also stated that he had informed the IO that he is not a literate person but on insistence of the IO, he had put his signatures over the papers which, at the time of making signatures were blank. DW-2 also stated that he was never interrogated and his statement was never recorded to confirm the recovery. During cross-examination, DW-2 stated that he has not received any summon from the court and that he has given his statement on the request of Saroj Tiwari. He stated that he does not know about the marriage of Anju Tiwari, daughter of Saroj Tiwari. DW-2 stated that he does not know anything about the beheaded body found in the grove of Daya Ram. He stated that he had put his signatures over 2 or 3 blank papers. At that time, neither there was a sickle nor pant or shirt or anything there. DW-2 stated that as and when Saroj Tiwari visited the village they used to formally greet each other. He stated that he had put his signatures over 2 or 3 blank papers. At that time, neither there was a sickle nor pant or shirt or anything there. DW-2 stated that as and when Saroj Tiwari visited the village they used to formally greet each other. He denied the suggestion that being a resident of the same village, he is making his statement to save Saroj Tiwari. 23. DW-3 Sapan Kumar Mishra - Note: He is another witness of the seizure memos (Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11) of weapon of assault, blood stained shirt and trouser, clothes etc. He stated that Saroj Kumar Tiwari is his mama (maternal uncle) who has his own house in DW-3’s village though, he had been working in Patna for last many years and living there with family. He stated that on 24.05.2000, it was death anniversary of his father. Saroj Tiwari along with his family, had come on 23.05.2000 from Patna. The Police arrested him from his home that very night, and took him to the police-station. Neither Saroj Tiwari nor his family members had taken out or handed over blood stained sickle, blood stained clothes and nylon rope. Next day, the I.O. and Police had come to DW-3’s house and asked him to put signatures on two blank papers. When he refused to sign on blank paper, they threatened him to put him in jail. Then he put his signature on both papers i.e. Ex.Ka-10 and Ex.Ka-11. When he had put his signature, there was nothing written on it. The I.O had not recorded his statement. During cross-examination, DW-3 stated that he had not received notice/summon from the court for giving his testimony. He came at the request of his uncle i.e. accused-appellant. Nothing much could come out from his cross-examination except that his mama had come from Patna along with his family on 23.05.2000 on DW-3’s father's death anniversary and the Police had arrested Saroj Tiwari, Munni Devi and Manju in the night of 23.05.2000; and that a dead body without head was recovered from the orchard of Dayaram near Dubna village. He did not know whose dead body it was. Anju's marriage had been solemnized, as was told by his mama. He denied the suggestion that while putting signature on the papers i.e. Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11, they were written. He did not know whose dead body it was. Anju's marriage had been solemnized, as was told by his mama. He denied the suggestion that while putting signature on the papers i.e. Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11, they were written. He admitted that in addition to his signature, signature of Jabar Ali was also obtained on those papers. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false statement to defend Saroj Tiwari i.e. his mama. 24. DW-4 Awadh Kishor Sharma - DW-4 stated that Saroj Kumar Tiwari has been working as a store assistant in Bihar State with Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. in its base work Shop at Patliputra, Patna since 01.01.1977 and is to retire in June, 2015. DW-4 stated that he had been posted as an Administrative Officer there and he retired from there in July 2010 and now, he is working on contract in the same corporation. DW-4 stated that S.K. Tiwari had worked on 22.05.2000 at Patliputra and was on earned leave from 23.05.2000 to 15.07.2000 and joined his duties on 17.07.2000. DW-4 stated that the duty hours in the factory are from 8.30 am to 5.00 p.m. DW-4 produced the attendance register from May, 2000 to July 2000. He identified Saroj Tiwari in the court. The original attendance register was produced and photo copies thereof verified under his signature were marked as Ex.Kha-1 to Ex.Kha-3. During cross-examination, he stated that when he got date from the court, he came to give his testimony. He stated that in this Corporation in the year 2000 he was Senior Assistant. Attendance register Ex.Kha-1 to Ex.Kha-3 was not in his handwriting; his signature is not on the register; 21.05.2000 was Sunday; it would take 6 hours to reach Allahabad from Patna by train; he has not brought the application for earned leave from 23.05.2000 to 15.07.2000; the Administrative Officer Laxman Prasad used to take the signatures of employees on the attendance register; his signature is not in that register; signature of Sri Laxman Paswan is nowhere in the register; if one starts from Allahabad to Patna in the evening or night of May, 21.05.2000 then one can reach Patna by 8.30 on 22.05.2000. He also stated that on 22.05.2000, he was not working with S.K. Tiwari in the factory because he was in the Head Quarter; he did not meet S.K. Tiwari on 22.05.2000. He also stated that on 22.05.2000, he was not working with S.K. Tiwari in the factory because he was in the Head Quarter; he did not meet S.K. Tiwari on 22.05.2000. He denied the suggestion that he is giving a false statement to benefit S.K. Tiwari. Trial Court Findings 25. The trial court held that it was proved by the evidence on record that the deceased had to visit his Sasural (in-laws house) at Kaushambi on 21.5.2000 and he boarded a train to go there; that he got killed there; that the murder weapon and blood-stained clothes were recovered at the pointing out of the accused-appellant; that the defence evidence raising plea of alibi was inconclusive and not confidence inspiring as 21.05.2000 was Sunday; that the motive to commit murder was there as the accused suppressed his first marriage to marry appellant’s daughter and, therefore, when the first marriage came to light motive developed. Finding these circumstances as to constitute a chain so complete that it pointed conclusively that it was the appellant and appellant alone who committed the murder and to destroy the evidence, threw headless body in a grove, convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly. The trial court however acquitted the other two co-accused, namely, Anju Tiwari (wife of the deceased) and Munni Devi (wife of the appellant) on the ground that there was no recovery at their instance hence, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant 26. The trial court however acquitted the other two co-accused, namely, Anju Tiwari (wife of the deceased) and Munni Devi (wife of the appellant) on the ground that there was no recovery at their instance hence, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant 26. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted (a) that the body was naked and headless therefore, there is no basis to assume that it was the body of the son in law of the appellant; (b) that there is no evidence that the deceased and the appellant were seen together in the village in the night preceding, or anytime before, the morning when the headless body of the deceased was recovered; (c) that the recovery of blood-stained clothes, weapon of assault, etc is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, even the witnesses to the recovery have resiled from it; (d) even otherwise, the recovery does not inspire confidence inasmuch as why the articles would be hidden in some one else’s house; (e) there is no strong motive for the crime; (f) there was no credible information to arrest therefore, the whole exercise of arrest and subsequent recovery becomes doubtful; (f) that it appears to be a case where the appellant and his family, on the basis of suspicion and to solve out a puzzling murder, have been falsely implicated. It was urged that the trial court did not properly evaluate the evidence hence, the judgment and order of conviction is liable to be set-aside. Submissions on behalf of the State 27. The learned AGA submitted that from the suggestions given by the defence to the prosecution witnesses it was established that the body was of the son in law of the deceased; otherwise also, the clothes etc of the deceased recovered at the instance of the appellant proved that the deceased had been in the village. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that the deceased was married to his daughter. The witnesses had proved that the deceased left Patna to go to his Sasural and that he were to go with his in-laws and wife therefore, it was proved that they were in company of each other. In such circumstances, in absence of explanation as to when they parted company and in view of recovery of incriminating articles, the chain of circumstances stood complete. In such circumstances, in absence of explanation as to when they parted company and in view of recovery of incriminating articles, the chain of circumstances stood complete. Consequently, the trial court was justified in recording conviction, particularly, when the plea of alibi was inconclusive. ANALYSIS 28. Having noticed the entire evidence and the rival submissions, before we proceed to evaluate the evidence we must bear in mind that this a case where there is no ocular account of murder. Considering that we are dealing with a case which is to be decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it would be useful to bear in mind the legal principles as to when the court can convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644 , the Supreme Court following its earlier decisions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Bablu vs. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCC 116 held that “in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.” Further, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra), it was clarified that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established meaning thereby they ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. In addition to above, we must bear in mind that the most fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions [Vide Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 ]. These settled legal principles have again been reiterated in a three-judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 19 SCC 447 wherein, in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment, it was held as follows: “18. On an analysis of the overall fact situation in the instant case, and considering the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution and noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, to prove the charge is visibly incomplete and incoherent to permit conviction of the appellants on the basis thereof without any trace of doubt. Though the materials on record hold some suspicion towards them, but the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof. 19. That apart, in the case of circumstantial evidence, two views are possible on the case of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. All the judicially laid parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence, bring home the guilt of the accused on a criminal charge, we find no difficulty to hold that the prosecution, in the case in hand, has failed to meet the same.” 29. Bearing the legal principles noticed above we shall evaluate the evidence brought by the prosecution. Bearing the legal principles noticed above we shall evaluate the evidence brought by the prosecution. The prosecution seeks to bring home the charge by following circumstances: (a) that the deceased was married to the daughter of the appellant; (b) that it was second marriage of the deceased by hiding the first marriage therefore, the accused held motive for the crime; (c) that on 21.05.2000 deceased came to the village of the appellant with the appellant, appellant’s daughter and wife by boarding an early morning train at Patna; (d) next day morning, at about 10 am deceased’s beheaded body was noticed; (e) the investigating officer, during the course of investigation received information about the deceased being the son in law of the appellant and of being with the appellant and other co-accused in the evening preceding recovery of his body therefore, acting on this information, appellant was arrested on 24.05.2000; (f) whereafter, on the confessional statement of the appellant and at his pointing out, blood stained clothes including plain clothes of the deceased and murder weapon etc was recovered on 24.05.2000; (g) thereafter, information was given to the family members of the deceased who identified the clothes etc. These circumstances according to the prosecution were duly proved and they constituted a chain so complete as to point conclusively towards the guilt of the appellant by ruling out all hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 30. Now we shall deal with each of the above circumstances to find out whether they have been duly proved. In so far as circumstance (a) i.e. the deceased was married to the daughter of the appellant is concerned, it stands proved by the statement of PW-4 and this fact is admitted to the appellant as would be clear from his answer to question no. 5 made while recording his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 09.05.2013. In so far as circumstance (b) i.e. the motive for the crime is concerned, the prosecution set out the theory of second marriage with the daughter of the appellant without disclosure of first marriage. 5 made while recording his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 09.05.2013. In so far as circumstance (b) i.e. the motive for the crime is concerned, the prosecution set out the theory of second marriage with the daughter of the appellant without disclosure of first marriage. No doubt, PW-4, uncle of the deceased has proved that the deceased was earlier married to a mentally challenged girl and the marriage with the daughter of the appellant was second marriage of the deceased, but there is no disclosure in his statement or of any other witness that the second marriage was performed by suppression of first marriage or that there were strained relations between the appellant and the deceased. Whatever motive is shown is in the confessional statement of the appellant before the police which is, firstly, not admissible in evidence and, secondly, no such disclosure statement has been exhibited. That apart, from the statement of PW-4, it appears, the second marriage was performed in a cordial atmosphere. Further, there is no admissible evidence that the daughter of the appellant was being harassed by the deceased. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no motive proved for the crime and the finding to the contrary returned by the trial court is based on inadmissible evidence and is therefore liable to be reversed. However, as motive is a mental element and, therefore, even if the prosecution has failed to prove a cogent motive for the crime, it would have to be assessed whether other circumstances have been proved. If so, whether they constitute a chain so complete as to point out that in all human probability it is the appellant and no one else who has committed the murder. 31. Before we proceed to dwell on other issues, it would be relevant to notice and address the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to fix the identity of the corpse. It has been argued that the corpse was a headless body with no clothes on it. Nothing has been brought on record as to on what basis the body was identified, particularly, when there is no scientific evidence such as DNA test on record. It has been argued that the corpse was a headless body with no clothes on it. Nothing has been brought on record as to on what basis the body was identified, particularly, when there is no scientific evidence such as DNA test on record. At first blush the submission appears attractive but when we deeply probed into the evidence on record, we noticed that there is no serious challenge to the body being that of the son in law of the appellant. Even in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. dated 09.05.2013, while answering question no. 13 (i.e. a general question as to whether the accused has anything to say), the appellant did not state that his son in law Pranesh is not dead. Rather, he stated that Pranesh had left Patna on 21.05.2000 to go to Fatehpur to attend a friend’s wedding. Interestingly, PW-4, uncle of the deceased, who had deposed that his nephew Pranesh has been killed by the accused, was given a suggestion, during cross-examination by the defence, that Pranesh Kumar had come to attend a wedding and after attending the wedding on his way back to his Sasural, at a secluded place, he was attacked, robbed and killed by unknown miscreants. By this suggestion the defence indirectly admitted that Pranesh was killed. Further, vide identification memorandum Ex.Ka-4, the chappal and clothes as well as photo of the deceased were identified on 30.05.2000 by PW-4 and PW-5 as that of the deceased. Hence, we reject the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution could not fix the identity of the headless body. 32. In so far as circumstance (c) i.e. that on 21.05.2000 deceased came to the village of the appellant with the appellant, appellant’s daughter and wife by boarding an early morning train at Patna is concerned, except the evidence of PW-4 there is no direct evidence that the deceased boarded a train early morning at Patna to go to Allahabad. Interestingly, the appellant also admits in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that his son in law left Patna on 21.05.2000 to go to Fatehpur to attend a friend’s wedding. But the appellant denied that he and his family also came with the deceased (i.e. appellant’s son in law). Rather, appellant’s case is that the appellant and his family arrived at their village on 23.05.2000 when the police arrested them. But the appellant denied that he and his family also came with the deceased (i.e. appellant’s son in law). Rather, appellant’s case is that the appellant and his family arrived at their village on 23.05.2000 when the police arrested them. What is important is that PW-4, the only witness of fact who states that the deceased left Patna to go to his Sasural, does not indicate that he saw the appellant and other co-accused with the deceased at the Patna railway station or noticed them there or had seen the appellant and other co-accused boarding the train. His statement is that the deceased met him outside the station. There is no other witness examined to indicate that the appellant along with other co-accused were seen together with the deceased on 21.05.2000. In view of the discussion above, circumstance (c) above is partly proved to the extent that the deceased left Patna on 21.05.2000. But it is not proved that the deceased left Patna with the appellant or/and the other co-accused. 33. As we have already found that the headless body was of Pranesh Kumar i.e. appellant’s son in law, we also notice that it was proved by PW-1 that the headless body was found on 22.05.2000 in the grove of Daya Ram. Further, from the spot a red colour chappal (slipper) and watch strap was recovered which has been proved by seizure memo dated 22.05.2000 (Ex.Ka-3). Now, what is crucial is whether the police arrested the appellant along with the co-accused on 24.05.2000 and effected recovery of articles as reflected by seizure memos (Ex.Ka-10 and Ex.Ka-11). Ex.Ka-10 is recovery memo dated 24.05.2000 showing recovery of weapon of assault (Sickle - Hansiya), a full sleeve blue stripe shirt and a jeans pant blood-stained at the pointing out of the appellant. The recovery memo does not record the disclosure statement but states that recovery was made at the pointing out of the appellant. Jabar Ali (DW-2) and Sapan Kumar Mishra (DW-3) are witnesses of the seizure memo. It also bears signature of Saroj Kumar Tiwari. Similarly, Ex.Ka-11 is recovery memo dated 24.05.2000 showing recovery of Nylon rope, one shirt, colour light red with stripes, one shirt full sleeves, brownish colour, with stripes, one jeans pant, grey colour and one black colour trouser. Jabar Ali (DW-2) and Sapan Kumar Mishra (DW-3) are witnesses of the seizure memo. It also bears signature of Saroj Kumar Tiwari. Similarly, Ex.Ka-11 is recovery memo dated 24.05.2000 showing recovery of Nylon rope, one shirt, colour light red with stripes, one shirt full sleeves, brownish colour, with stripes, one jeans pant, grey colour and one black colour trouser. This recovery memo Ex.Ka-11 also does not record the disclosure statement but states that recovery was made at the pointing out of the appellant. Here also Jabar Ali (DW-2) and Sapan Kumar Mishra (DW-3) are witnesses of the seizure memo. It also bears signature of Saroj Kumar Tiwari. Interestingly, in support of the two recovery memos, two site plans dated 24.05.2000 have been prepared by PW-7. One is Ex.Ka-8 and the other is Ex.Ka-9. Ex.Ka-8 is titled as Naksha Najri (site plan) of deceased’s bloodstained clothes. The contents of the plan would reflect that it is a grove of Daya Ram having Mahua trees. The index of the site plan (Ex.Ka-8) would suggest that the spot from where the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were taken out is shown by point A. Just north of that spot is grove of Daya Ram. When we compare it with site plan (Ex.Ka-7) prepared in respect of the spot from where the headless body was recovered on 22.05.2000 it becomes clear that the spot disclosed in site plan Ex.Ka-8 and site plan Ex.Ka-7 is the same grove. Notably, as per prosecution case, body of the deceased was found lying in the grove of Daya Ram. What is important to note is that Ex.Ka-8 does not indicate from where the sickle was recovered. But when we come to the statement of PW-7 (I.O.), who effected the recovery of blood stained clothes and sickle, we find that according to him recovery of blood-stained clothes was made from a room of the house of Sapan Kumar where in a haystack the sickle was hidden. Thus, the site plan which shows recovery of blood-stained shirt from near the grove of Daya Ram, where the body was found, is at complete variance with the statement of PW-7. All of this would suggest that the recovery of blood-stained shirt was from the spot i.e. where the body was found and the same was attributed to the appellant. Thus, the site plan which shows recovery of blood-stained shirt from near the grove of Daya Ram, where the body was found, is at complete variance with the statement of PW-7. All of this would suggest that the recovery of blood-stained shirt was from the spot i.e. where the body was found and the same was attributed to the appellant. What is also important to note is that the two witnesses of the recovery memo DW-2 and DW-3 have claimed that their signatures were obtained on plain papers and DW-3 was threatened that if he does not sign, he would be put behind bars. 34. Similarly, when we come to the site plan (Ex.Ka-9), prepared in respect of the other recovery memo, it is noticed that it is tilted as Naksha Najri (site plan) of recovery of murder weapon Hansiya (Sickle), nylon rope and other clothes of deceased Pranesh Kumar. The contents of the site plan would reflect that it relates to a house. Point A is shown as the place from where the murder weapon has been taken out. It is shown to be from haystack kept in a room. Point B is a room in the house from where two shirts and pants of Pranesh Kumar were taken out. It be noted that the index of the site plan (Ex.Ka-9) does not speak of recovery of blood-stained shirt or blood-stained pant of the deceased, it only speaks of other clothes of the deceased. Thus, what is clear from the two site plans and the recovery memos is that there were two separate places from where recoveries were shown. One, from where recovery of blood-stained clothes was shown, as per site plan (Ex.Ka-8), was near the grove of Daya Ram where the body was found and the other was the house of Sapan Kumar (DW-3) from where the Sickle and other clothes of the deceased was recovered. But, surprisingly, from the statement of PW-7 (I.O.) both recoveries were effected from the house of Sapan Kumar. Notably, the witnesses of the recoveries have not been produced by the prosecution. Rather, they have appeared as defence witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and have challenged the recovery by stating that they were made to sign plain papers. DW-3 from whose house recovery was made claimed that he was made to sign those papers under threat of implication. Notably, the witnesses of the recoveries have not been produced by the prosecution. Rather, they have appeared as defence witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and have challenged the recovery by stating that they were made to sign plain papers. DW-3 from whose house recovery was made claimed that he was made to sign those papers under threat of implication. In such circumstances, as the accused-appellant claimed that the recovery was fabricated after arresting him on 23.05.2000, there arises a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the recovery more so, because we find no evidence on the basis of which arrest of the appellant was effected. Notably, according to the defence, the appellant was working at Patna, he took train from Patna to reach the village on 23.05.2000. At the village, he was arrested and implicated. If the appellant had been in the village from before, and information had been received regarding murder of his son in law, he would for sure been interrogated on 22.05.2000 itself, particularly, when headless body was found in the morning of 22.05.2000. As to when and from whom information was received about the involvement of the appellant and his family, warranting their arrest, the prosecution evidence is shaky. PW-7 (I.O.) only speaks of receipt of information from an informer. Another person, namely, Jainul, from whom the I.O. claims receipt of information with regard to the accused and the deceased being noticed together alighting from a Tempo in the night of 21.05.2000 has not been examined as a prosecution witness. Rather, he appeared as a defence witness (DW-1). DW-1 completely denies witnessing any such thing and denies giving information to the police. Noticeably, DW-1 was not confronted with any of his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further, if the appellant had his own house in the village, what was the occasion to keep clothes of the deceased in the house of Sapan Kumar. All of this would probalize the defence case that the appellant was at Patna till 22.05.2000; his son in law (i.e. the deceased) came alone, whereas the appellant arrived in the village on 23.05.2000 whereafter he was arrested and implicated. For all the reasons above, the recoveries set up by the prosecution at the instance of the appellant do not inspire our confidence, particularly, when there is no separate disclosure statement exhibited to support the recovery. For all the reasons above, the recoveries set up by the prosecution at the instance of the appellant do not inspire our confidence, particularly, when there is no separate disclosure statement exhibited to support the recovery. Rather, it appears to be a case where the blood-stained shirt etc was recovered from near the spot from where the headless body was lifted and since the deceased had come to the village, his plain clothes and other articles were found in the house of Sapan Kumar with whom he may be staying, in absence of his father in law, as a relative of his father in law. In so far as Sickle is concerned it is a common agriculture tool. Its presence by itself is not incriminating. Interestingly, the doctor (PW-8) stated that the head could not have been severed with a grass cutting Sickle. Otherwise also, the origin of the blood found on the Sickle could not be ascertained as it had disintegrated. 35. Once we discard the alleged recoveries at the instance of the appellant and notice that there is complete absence of evidence that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellant or the other co-accused on 21.05.2000 in the village or even in the train from which the deceased arrived, there is very little evidence against the accused appellant and, therefore, it would be highly unsafe to convict the appellant, particularly, when even the motive for the crime was not proved as already discussed above. 36. For all the reasons above, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring sufficient evidence to raise its case from the plane of suspicion to the level of proof. Further, the prosecution has not been able to rule out alternative hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant. Thus, we have no option but to allow the appeal by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for which he has been tried and convicted. He is reported to be in jail. he shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case subject to fulfilment of the requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of trial court below. 37. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for which he has been tried and convicted. He is reported to be in jail. he shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case subject to fulfilment of the requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of trial court below. 37. Let a copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.