JUDGMENT : RAMESH SINHA, J. 1. Since the aforesaid four criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 07/2015, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants-Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), Monu alias Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3), Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4), Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5) and Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6) have preferred these four criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 07/2015, by which they have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year and RI for five years and fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 26/27.11.2014 at village Rudri Basti, P.S.Rudri, District Dhamtari, the present appellants consumed liquor with deceased Chetan Bai and thereafter throttled the neck of the deceased and thereafter intersected the head from the body with the help of knife and axe. It has further been alleged that axe and knife which were used in the crime were hidden by them in different places to screen the offence. As per the information of the village kotwar on 27.11.2014, Police of Police Station Rudri received the information about the dead body of an unknown lady being found, then the Station House Officer of Police Station Rudri with his subordinate staff went to the spot and registered a morgue intimation vide Ex.P-15. After inspection of the spot, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-18. Thereafter, notice of inquest (Ex.P-16) was served to the witnesses Ramdas Manikpuri, Smt.Hembai Sinha, Shyam Sunder Sinha, Chhabi Lal Meshram and Moolchand Sahu on the spot and thereafter inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P-17. On the basis of facts mentioned in the inquest report the SHO registered an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the unknown persons as Crime No. 0/2015, thereafter as per the information of informant, Kotwar Ramdas Manikpuri, dehati nalishi was registered. On the basis of facts mentioned in the inquest report the SHO registered an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the unknown persons as Crime No. 0/2015, thereafter as per the information of informant, Kotwar Ramdas Manikpuri, dehati nalishi was registered. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem at Government Hospital, Dhamtari where Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-13) conducted postmortem of the deceased vide Ex.P-10 and found following injuries: “1. Abrasion present over right mandibular region of face, 3 x 2 cm reddish. 2. Two abrasion present over left side of face, 5 x 2 cm on left zygoma and 3 x 3 cm on left mandibular region, reddish. 3. Chop wound (Decapitation) present over neck, at the level of cervical 3rd vertebra, 14 x 13 cm x bone deep, margins clear cut, regular with e/o complete transection of neck at cervical 3rd vertebra with e/o underlying muscle, vessels cut and cut fracture of cervical 3rd vertebra. 4. Chop wound present over back of neck, 1.3 cm above injury No. 3, 5 x 0.7 cm x bone deep, margins clean cut, regular & blood infiltrated. Cut fracture of 2nd cervical vertebra.” The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage following decapitation injury and death was homicidal in nature. 4. After returning to the police station, Morgue No. 18/2014 was registered vide Ex.P-44 and on the same day, first information report (Ex.P-50) for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC has been registered as Crime No. 71/2014 and thereafter investigation was started. During the investigation, fact of the dispute between accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri with the deceased came to the notice of the investigating officer as the deceased was stepmother of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, Kumari Das Manikpuri and Kumari Parvati Manikpuri. After receiving this information, the police interrogated accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, who stated that in the night of 26.11.2014 he with other c-accused persons namely, Monu Nishad, Dipak Dhruv, Lakhan Lal, Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri planned to murder the deceased. After receiving this information, the police interrogated accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, who stated that in the night of 26.11.2014 he with other c-accused persons namely, Monu Nishad, Dipak Dhruv, Lakhan Lal, Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri planned to murder the deceased. Accused Ravindra Das sent other co-accused persons to purchase liquor and all four accused persons with the deceased consumed liquor and when the deceased was unable to understand things because of heavy drunkenness, all the accused persons pressed her neck and thereafter cut her head with the help of axe and knife and thereafter they have taken body parts of the deceased in the motor-cycle and threw it near Beltara Shikarikhar canal bridge and head of the deceased was thrown in the water of Mahanadi Devpur Ghat. 5. The police recorded memorandum statements of the accused vide Exs.P-26 to P-31 and on the basis of memorandum statement of Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), head of the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P-21. Panchnama and seizure memo were prepared vide Exs.P-22 to 23. Woolen cloth, axe and passbook were seized from accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1) vide Exs.P-32 to P-35. From the possession of Monu alias Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), knife was recovered vide Ex.P-36. From the possession of accused Dipak Kumar Dhruv, motor-cycle bearing registration No. C.G.05 K 9029 was recovered vide Ex.P-37. From the possession of accused Kumari Das Manikpuri (A-6), wooden handle of axe was recovered vide Ex.P-38. From the possession of accused Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A-5), clothes of the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P-39. 6. After due investigation, all the appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in which they abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating inter-alia that they have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 76 documents Exs.P-1 to P-76. None was examined on behalf of the defence, however, document (Ex.D-1) was brought on record. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.09.2015, proceeded to convict the aforesaid accused persons for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as aforementioned, against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred. 9. Ms. None was examined on behalf of the defence, however, document (Ex.D-1) was brought on record. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.09.2015, proceeded to convict the aforesaid accused persons for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as aforementioned, against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred. 9. Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA No. 1394/2015 would submit that there is no legal admissible evidence against appellants-Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5) and Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6) as clothes of the deceased were recovered from the possession of appellant-Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5) and wooden handle of axe was recovered from the possession of appellant-Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6). She would further submit that there is no evidence on record that the present appellants were involved in planning of murder of deceased Chetan Bai. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellants deserve to be set aside. 10. Mr. Sourabh Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) in CRA No. 1590/2015 would submit that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances which would require to complete the chain are missing. He would further submit that only motor-cycle splendor black-blue colour bearing registration number CG05 K 9029 has been seized from him, which nowhere connects him for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has failed to establish this circumstance against the appellant. He would further submit Shailendra Wankhede (PW-23) in para-8 of his cross-examination has stated that the police persons told him that the accused persons have accepted that motor-cycle kept in the police station was used in the crime to took the dead body. He would also submit that conviction is also based on memorandum statement of appellant-accused (Ex.P-37). It is submitted that confessional statement was recorded after the arrest of these accused and when these accused were in police custody. Therefore, such statements were inadmissible in light of the provisions contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. He contended that Vikas Kaushik (PW-16) in Para 5 of his deposition has stated that the police officer did not record the statement of the appellant-accused. He further contended that in the case relating to circumstantial evidence, the vital piece of circumstance i.e. motive plays a very important role. He contended that Vikas Kaushik (PW-16) in Para 5 of his deposition has stated that the police officer did not record the statement of the appellant-accused. He further contended that in the case relating to circumstantial evidence, the vital piece of circumstance i.e. motive plays a very important role. In the present case, there is no evidence to prove the motive of the appellant, therefore, it makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellant deserve to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Digamber Vaishnav vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522 , Manoj Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P. 2023 SCC Online SC 984, Indra Dalal vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31 , Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 and Babu vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 . 11. Mr.Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1) would submit that on his memorandum statement, head of the deceased was recovered and also recovered woolen cloth, axe and passbook. He would further submit that there is no evidence to connect him in crime in question. The trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting & sentencing the present appellant. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and conviction & sentence imposed upon the appellant deserve to be set aside. 12. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar and Lakhan Nishad in CRA No. 519/2022 would submit that the case of the prosecution is based on memorandum and seizure witnesses Vikas Kaushik (PW-16) and Shailendra Wankhede (PW-23). In Para 5 of his examination-in-chief, Vikas Kaushik (PW-16) has deposed that the police had not recorded memorandum of any other accused (including both the appellants herein) except Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1). In Para 18 of his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that the police had not recorded memorandum of both the appellants. This witness has further stated that he does not know both the appellants and he cannot identify Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar and Lakhan Nishad. In Para 4 of his examination-in-chief, Shailendra Wankhede (PW-23) has deposed that nothing was seized from appellant Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar. This witness has further stated that he does not know both the appellants and he cannot identify Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar and Lakhan Nishad. In Para 4 of his examination-in-chief, Shailendra Wankhede (PW-23) has deposed that nothing was seized from appellant Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar. In Para 8, he deposed that it is not correct to say that knife was seized from appellant Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar. He would further submit that as per these witnesses, memorandum of these two appellants were not recorded and knife was not seized from appellant Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar as claimed in charge-sheet by the prosecution. Moreover, Dr.Snigdha Jain (PW-13) in paras 17 & 18 of examination-in-chief and paras 21 & 22 of cross-examination has deposed and admitted that the injuries caused upon the deceased could not be inflicted by the Article-02 knife, which was allegedly seized from appellant Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar. Similarly, in Exs.P-12 and P-13, it is clearly mentioned that the injuries caused upon the deceased could not be inflicted by the Article-02 knife (which was allegedly seized from appellant Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar). Thus, it is clear that the appellants herein i.e. Monu Bhuvaneshwar and Lakhan Nishad are innocent and there is no evidence at all against them on the basis of which they can be convicted. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of those doubts. As such, the criminal appeal on their behalf deserves to be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted by giving benefit of doubts. 13. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering all incriminating materials and circumstances available against the accused persons rightly convicted them for the aforesaid offences. He would further submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the instant criminal appeals being bereft of merits are liable to be dismissed looking to the commission of offence done by the accused persons. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Chetan Bai was homicidal in nature? 16. On behalf of the prosecution, Dr. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Chetan Bai was homicidal in nature? 16. On behalf of the prosecution, Dr. Snigdha Jain who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-10 has been examined as PW-13 and opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage following decapitation injury and death was homicidal in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Chetan Bai was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 17. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under: “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 18. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record has convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record has convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that all the appellants conspired together and consumed liquor with the deceased and throttled the neck of the deceased and thereafter intersected the head from the body with the help of knife & axe and thereupon caused evidence connected to the said crime to disappear in order to screen themselves from the offences. 19. The trial Court found the motive of the offence proved and established holding that Chetan Bai was the stepmother of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri and accused-appellant Ravindra Das Manikpuri used to fight with deceased Chetan Bai as deceased Chetan Bai used to take all money from his salary and keep it with herself and did not even give him and his sisters Kumari Parvati Das and Kumari Das Manikpuri proper fooding etc. On the night of the incident, accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri along with other accused Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad, Lakhan Nishad and Dipak Kumar Dhruv came to the house of deceased and all the accused persons and Chetan Bai consumed liquor in the house, at that time, accused Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri were also in the house. After having dinner, deceased Chetan Bai’s real sons Narendra Das Manikpuri and Shailendra Manikpuri were put to sleep. In the morning when Narendra Das Manikpuri (son of deceased Chetan Bai) woke up, there was no sign of his mother Chetan Bai. After that, suddenly the dead body was found lying on the canal crossing in front of Shikari Khar canal bridge of village Beltara. Thus, the circumstance shows that the accused had a reason to kill deceased Chetan Bai. Thus, it is quite vivid that motive of the offence has been established as deceased Chetan Bai was the stepmother of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, Kumari Parvati Manikpuri & Kumari Das Manikpuri and accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri used to fight with deceased Chetan Bai as deceased Chetan Bai used to take all money from his salary and keep it with herself and did not even give him and his sisters Kumari Parvati Das and Kumari Das Manikpuri proper fooding etc. 20. 20. Evidence available on record would show that in the intervening night of 26-27.11.2014 at village Rudri Basti, P.S. Rudri, District Dhamtari, appellants-Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3) and Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) consumed liquor with the deceased Chetan Bai and when the deceased was unable to understand things because of heavy drunkenness, all the accused persons pressed her neck and thereafter intersected the head from the body with the help of knife & axe and after that, they have taken body parts of the deceased in the motorcycle and threw it near Beltara Shikarikhar canal bride and head of the deceased was thrown in the water of Mahanadi Devpur ghat so that her identification could not be disclosed to anyone as pursuant to memorandum statement of Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1) (Ex.P-26), head of the deceased was recovered on his pointing out in gunny bag vide Ex.P-22. On the memorandum statement of Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) (Ex.P-27), one motor-cycle splendor bearing registration number CG 05 K 9029 was recovered on his pointing out vide Ex.P-37. On the basis of memorandum statement of Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2) (Ex.P-29), knife was recovered on his pointing out vide Ex.P-36. On the basis of memorandum statement of Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5), clothes of the deceased were recovered vide Ex.P-39 and on the memorandum statement of accused Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6), burnt ash of wooden handle of axe was recovered on her pointing vide Ex.P-38. 21. On the basis of memorandum statement of Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5), clothes of the deceased were recovered vide Ex.P-39 and on the memorandum statement of accused Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6), burnt ash of wooden handle of axe was recovered on her pointing vide Ex.P-38. 21. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly found incriminating circumstances as mentioned in para-12 of the impugned judgment as motive of the offence has been established as appellant Ravidra Das Manikpuri (A1) sent other co-accused persons i.e. Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3) and Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) to purchas liquor and all four accused persons with the deceased consumed liquor and when the deceased was unable to understand things because of heavy drunkenness, all the accused persons pressed her neck and thereafter cut her head with the help of axe & knife and after that, they have taken body parts of the deceased in motor-cycle and threw it near Beltara Shikarikhar canal bride and head of the deceased was thrown in the water of Mahanadi Devpur Ghat and pursuant to memorandum statement of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), head of the deceased was recovered on his pointing out from Devpur Mahanadi Ghat vide Ex.P-22 which he has failed explain in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has proved the conspiracy and also proved that in order to screen themselves from offence they have thrown body parts of the deceased near Beltara Shikarikhar canal bridge and head of the deceased was thrown in the water of Mahanadi Devpur Ghat. 22. As noticed herein-above, from possession of accused Monu @ Bhuvneshwar Nishad (A2), knife was recovered on his pointing out vide Ex.P-36, from possession of accused Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4), one motor-cycle splendor bearing registration number CG 05 K 9029 was recovered vide Ex.P-37, which they failed to explain under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 23. The trial Court has relied upon the theory last seen together. Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6) is witness of last seen together. He has deposed in para-2 of his evidence that Chetan Bai has passed away. His mother Chetan Bai was killed by his brother Ravindradas Manikpuri. The trial Court has relied upon the theory last seen together. Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6) is witness of last seen together. He has deposed in para-2 of his evidence that Chetan Bai has passed away. His mother Chetan Bai was killed by his brother Ravindradas Manikpuri. At night, his brother Ravindradas Manikpuri came after drinking alcohol and also made his mother Chetan Bai drink alcohol, on that day, cock was cooked in the house, made him sleep after having dinner, also put his younger brother Shailendra to sleep. On the night, when his mother was given alcohol, Ravindra Das Manikpuri, Dipak, Lakhan and Parveen were with her. His sisters were also there, they had also fallen asleep. When he woke up in the morning, he saw that his sisters were cleaning on the floor, then he asked his sisters why they were cleaning and where his mother had gone, then his sisters stated that mother Chetan Bai had gone to the village. After that he went to play. 24. Now the question for consideration would be, whether the plea of last seen together can be held to be established, which is based on Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 25. Section 101 of the Evidence Act states as under: “101. Burden of proof - Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” 26. Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, whoever desires any Court to give a judgment as to a liability dependent on the existence of facts, he must prove that those facts exist. Therefore, the burden is always on the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Section 106 constitutes an exception to Section 101. 27. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states as under: “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. (b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.” 28. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the Court can always draw an appropriate inference. 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bodhraj alias Bodha and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 has laid down the principle on which last seen theory can be invoked into and held as under: “31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that deceased, A-1 and A-2 were seen together by witnesses i.e. PWs 14, 15 and 18; in addition to the evidence of PWs l and 2.” 30. In this case there is positive evidence that deceased, A-1 and A-2 were seen together by witnesses i.e. PWs 14, 15 and 18; in addition to the evidence of PWs l and 2.” 30. The Supreme Court in the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 has held that when the death had occurred in his (the appellant therein) custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was observed as under: “22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the com-mission of crime they were seen together or the of-fence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram vs. State of H.P. (1972) 2 SCC 80 it was ob-served that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife....” 31. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211 relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 has held as under: “16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well-nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said: (AIR p. 406, Para 11) “11. This [Section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not in-tended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate dispro-portionately difficult, for the prosecution to estab-lish facts which are ‘especially’ within the knowl-edge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word ‘especially’ stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.” 32. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 306 has held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. It was observed as under: “14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reason-able doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. It was observed as under: “14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reason-able doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule e.g. where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.” 33. From perusal of evidence of Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6), it is evident that accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3) and Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) consumed liquor along with his mother Chetan Bai, his sisters were also there, they had also fallen asleep and when he woke up in the morning, he saw that his sisters were cleaning on the floor, then he asked his sisters why they were cleaning and where mother had gone, then his sisters said that mother Chetan Bai had gone to the village. 34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 107 had occasion to deal with such nature of evidence wherein it held that it is quite common that based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those situations to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to the nature of recoveries and as to how they came into possession or for planting the same at the places from where they were recovered. That part of the statement which does not in any way implicate the accused but is mere statement of facts would only amount to mere admissions which can be relied upon for ascertaining the other facts which are intrinsically connected with the occurrence, while at the same time, the same would not in any way result in implicating the accused in the offence directly. 35. 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640 has observed that the discovery of facts under Section 27 information regarding other accused persons, to establish charge of conspiracy, in furtherance of common intention would be admissible. The Supreme Court in such case at Para 16, 17 & 18 has held as under: “16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottayha vs. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 and held thus: (Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 , SCC p. 704, Paras 125-127) “125. We are of the view that Kottaya Case [ AIR 1947 PC 67 ] is an authority for the proposition that “discovery of fact” cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 . Thomas J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, Para 35) “35... The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.” In Mohd. Inayatullah vs. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828 , Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression “fact discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case, AIR 1947 PC 67 . The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, Para 13) “13...Now it is fairly settled that the expression ‘fact discovered’ includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this [See Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 and Udai Bhan vs. State of U.P. 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 830].” 17. In State of Maharashtra vs. Damu, AIR 2000 SC 1691 the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 282-283, Paras 35-38) “35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered”. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 37. How did the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot. 38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.” 18. 38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.” 18. In Ismail vs. Emperor, AIR 1946 Sind 43 it was held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused was found by the police the statement by the accused made to the Police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused was held to be admissible under section 27 as evidence against the accused.” 36. The trial Court in para-19 of its judgment has recorded the finding that the clothes found on the body of the deceased by the investigating officer were half-burnt panty, half-burnt blanket, half-burnt mat and soil stained with blood from the place where the dead body was lying. On the basis of the memorandum of the accused-appellants, the weapons seized at their instance i.e. axe, knife and ashes of burnt clothes were examined from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. FSL report shows that where the body of the deceased was lying the bloodstained soil Exhibit-A, half burnt blanket found on the body Exhibit C-2, a piece of half burnt mat found near the dead body Exhibit C-3, bloodstained soil found from the spot where the deceased was murdered Exhibit D and E, axe recovered on the memorandum of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri Exhibit-F, knife recovered on the memorandum of accused Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad Exhibit-G and scarf found on the dead body Exhibit-J, human blood was found on it. The soil obtained from the place where the dead body was lying (Exhibit A), half burnt blanket found on the dead body (Exhibit C-3) and knife recovered from accused Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar (Exhibit G), blood of group B was found and no blood was found in remaining property. It is clear from the report that human blood was found in axe (Exhibit-F) recovered from accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri and knife recovered from accused Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (Exhibit-G). The explanation as to how the said human blood came on the said two articles has not been given by the accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri and Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad. It is clear from the report that human blood was found in axe (Exhibit-F) recovered from accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri and knife recovered from accused Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (Exhibit-G). The explanation as to how the said human blood came on the said two articles has not been given by the accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri and Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad. Thus, the circumstantial evidence clearly proves that accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad were involved in murder of deceased Chetan Bai and accused-appellants i.e. Lakhan Nishad and Dipak Kumar Dhruv have actively participated in murder of the deceased. 37. From perusal of evidence of Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6), it is evident that accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3) and Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) consumed liquor along with his mother Chetan Bai, his sisters were also there, they had also fallen asleep and when he woke up in the morning, he saw that his sisters were cleaning on the floor, then he asked his sisters why they were cleaning and where mother had gone, then his sisters said that mother Chetan Bai had gone to the village. Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6) has not stated anything in his evidence against Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri that they have also involved in conspiracy of murder of mother of this witness. In para-5 of his cross-examination, he has stated that it is correct that after having dinner, he slept with his younger brother Shailendra and his sisters Rinky Pinky also slept. 38. As such, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-Dipak Kumar Dhruv in CRA No. 1590/2015 i.e. Digamber Vaishnav (supra), Manoj Kumar Soni (supra), Indra Dalal (supra), Bipin Kumar Mondal (supra) and Babu (supra) are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 39. 38. As such, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-Dipak Kumar Dhruv in CRA No. 1590/2015 i.e. Digamber Vaishnav (supra), Manoj Kumar Soni (supra), Indra Dalal (supra), Bipin Kumar Mondal (supra) and Babu (supra) are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 39. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), evidence of Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6), postmortem report (Ex.P-11), evidence of Dr.Snigdha Jain (PW-13), recovery of head (Ex.P-22) on the pointing out of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), considering the memorandum statements of the accused/appellants and the finding recorded by the trial Court in para-19 of its judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing appellants Appellants-Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), Monu @ Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3), Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4) for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. As such, their appeals deserves to be dismissed. 40. Considering the evidence of Narendra Das Manikpuri (PW-6), particularly para-5 of his cross-examination and also considering the fact that except memorandum statements of Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5) and Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6), no any incriminating articles have been seized from their possession and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove their involvement in crime in question, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting appellants-Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5) and Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6) for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC as benefit of doubt ought to have been given to them. 41. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 1590/2015 filed on behalf of appellant-Dipak Kumar Dhruv, Criminal Appeal No. 121/2016 filed on behalf of appellant-Ravindra Das and Criminal Appeal No. 519/2022 filed on behalf of appellant-Monu @ Bhuneshwar Nishad & Lakhan Nishad are dismissed. However, Criminal Appeal No. 1394/2015 filed on behalf of appellants-Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri is allowed and their conviction & sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC are hereby set aside. They are on bail. They are not required to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stands discharged. 42. However, Criminal Appeal No. 1394/2015 filed on behalf of appellants-Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri is allowed and their conviction & sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC are hereby set aside. They are on bail. They are not required to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stands discharged. 42. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused-appellants, namely, Kumari Parvati Manikpuri and Kumari Das Manikpuri are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 43. Appellant-Dipak Kumar Dhruv of Criminal Appeal No. 1590/2015 is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. He shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody by the trial Court. Appellants Ravindra Das, Monu @ Bhuneshwar Nishad and Lakhan Nishad are in jail. They shall serve out their sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 44. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action forthwith.