Judgment : (Rajani Dubey, J.) The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in ST No.53/2017 convicting and sentencing the appellant as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts. Life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to undergo additional RI for 03 months on each count. Under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code on two counts. Imprisonment for 01 year, pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 03 months on each count. All the substantive jail sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Gajendra Diwan through a written complaint informed the police of Police Station - Magarload that Suklal Kamar, Vedram Kanwar and Govind Ram Sahu of his village came to him on 22.7.2017 and informed that a few days ago they had gone near Darra Dodgi Nala for working under the Rojgar Guarantee Scheme. When they went inside the jungle for catching a hen, near the Nala by the side of saja tree they saw burnt skeleton bones of unknown male or female and out of fear did not narrate the same to anyone. However, when a few days ago they came to know that wife and son of one Vedprakash @ Prakar Kanwar of his village are missing, they have come to inform about it to him. Thereupon the complainant went to the spot along with them and found some burnt pieces of human bones. Based on the above information, the police of Police Station – Magarload registered Merg No.32/17 and during enquiry it was found that a missing report No.14/17 in respect of Sarojani Mahanand and Priyanshu Kumar has been registered at Police Station – Kurud. Further enquiry revealed that deceased Sarojani Mahanand had affair with Vedprakash and they were living as husband and wife and from this relationship Priyanshu was born. Vedprakash was going to perform engagement with one Tikeshwari of his community on 26.2.2017 and when it came to the knowledge of Sarojani Mahanand, there was quarrel between the two and therefore, in order to get rid of them, Vedprakash committed their murder by strangulation. Vedprakash was going to perform engagement with one Tikeshwari of his community on 26.2.2017 and when it came to the knowledge of Sarojani Mahanand, there was quarrel between the two and therefore, in order to get rid of them, Vedprakash committed their murder by strangulation. After murder, he concealed the dead bodies in a pit and burnt them in order to cause disappearance of evidence of the crime. 03. During the course of investigation, spot maps were prepared, inquest report of bones of the deceased persons were prepared and memorandum of the appellant was recorded which led to seizure of 02 pieces of tibia bone, 02 pieces of skulls, 26 pieces of bones etc. The seized bones were sent for forensic examination and expert opinion. Blood sample of the accused was obtained for DNA test. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. As per FSL report, the accused was found to be biological father of deceased Priyanshu. However, no DNA profile could be obtained from the tibia bone alleged to be of deceased Sarojani Mahanand. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was filed against the accused. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC on two counts for committing murder of Sarojani and Priyanshu and causing disappearance of evidence of the crime, which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and liable to be set aside. In the present case, there is no eyewitness to the incident and the whole case rests upon circumstantial evidence but there is no complete chain of circumstances which could unerringly lead to the guilt of the appellant. Learned trial Court has failed to see that there is no conclusive proof regarding identification of the bones recovered from the forest as that of deceased Sarojani Mahanand and Priyanshu. Learned trial Court has failed to see that there is no conclusive proof regarding identification of the bones recovered from the forest as that of deceased Sarojani Mahanand and Priyanshu. PW-1 Vedram Kanwar, PW-2 Suklal Kanmar, PW-3 Gajendra Kumar Diwan and PW-4 Rajni Mahanand have not supported the prosecution case. Learned trial Court has heavily relied upon the memorandum statement of the appellant leading to recovery of alleged bones of the deceased persons as also the appellant being last seen with the deceased whereas such evidence being weak type of evidence, merely on that basis the appellant cannot be held guilty of such a heinous crime. Learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that there is a considerable time gap of four months between the appellant being last seen with the deceased and recovery of the burnt bones. The DNA report is also doubtful in this case. He submits that if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused but such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt and it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances. In the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt of the appellant based on the circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt and as such, he is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of CG, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239; Boby Vs. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 ; and the judgment dated 29.4.2024 of this Court in CRA No.2172/2023 in the matter of Krishna Jhali Vs. State of CG 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that on the basis of evidence adduced the prosecution has successfully proved that the skeleton bones found in the forest were of deceased Sarojani Mahanand and Priyanshu; as per DNA report appellant is the biological father of deceased Priyanshu and further, as per evidence of PW-4 Rajni Mahanand it stands proved that the appellant was last seen with the deceased persons. The appellant failed to offer any explanation as to why he took no steps for about two months after his wife and son went missing. The appellant failed to offer any explanation as to why he took no steps for about two months after his wife and son went missing. Thus, learned trial Court having regard to the overall evidence on record, oral and documentary and conduct of the appellant, has rightly convicted and sentenced him by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 302 and 201 of IPC on two counts for committing murder of Sarojani Mahanand and Priyanshu and causing disappearance of evidence of the crime by burning and concealing the dead bodies. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 10. As per prosecution case, deceased Sarojani Mahanand and the appellant were having affair, they were living together as husband and wife and from their relationship, Priyanshu was born. 11. PW-17 Nirbhay Singh, Inspector, states that on 22.7.2017 informant Gajendra Diwan made a written complaint Ex.P/10 that burnt human bones of some unknown male or female are lying in the forest near Nala and based on this, he registered merg No.32/17 vide Ex.P/27 which bears his signature from A to A part and that of the informant from B to B part. 12. PW-3 Gajendra Diwan states that Vedram Kanwar, Suklal Kamar and Govind Sahu informed him that near Darra Dodgi Nala they saw human bones and then he made a written complaint to this effect vide Ex.P/10 which bears his signature from A to A part. He also admits his signature on the notice under Section 175 of CrPC (Ex.P/1) and bones panchanamas (Ex.P/2 to P/4) from B to B part. He denied memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P/11 to the police before him. However, he states that bones were recovered from the place of occurrence and that the police also seized one Nokia mobile and one black colour motorcycle HF Delux No. CG 05 W 6340. He admits his signature on seizure memos Ex.P/6, P/7, P/8, P/12 & P/13 from A to A and B to B part respectively. However, he states that bones were recovered from the place of occurrence and that the police also seized one Nokia mobile and one black colour motorcycle HF Delux No. CG 05 W 6340. He admits his signature on seizure memos Ex.P/6, P/7, P/8, P/12 & P/13 from A to A and B to B part respectively. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he denied the suggestion that at the instance of accused, the bones were recovered. 13. PW-17 Nirbhay Singh states that he collected the skeleton bones as per memorandum (Ex.P/11) of the accused and prepared seizure memo Ex. P/6, P/7, P/8, P/12 & P/13. He also sent application for DNA test (Ex.P/39) of the accused and the application for giving report after examination of bones to Forensic Department, Medical College Hospital, Raipur is Ex.P/40. He sent the seized articles through SP, Dhamtari to FSL, Raipur for giving its DNA test report vide Ex.P/41. He also got video shooting of recording of memorandum of the accused vide Ex.P/43. 14. PW-9 Dr. SMM Murthy states that he preserved blood sample of the accused as per letter Ex.P/18 which bears his signature from A to A part and that he took blood sample of the accused vide identification form of Ex.P/19. 15. PW-8 Dr. Pushpa Janbandhu states that Constable Ganesh Sahu 210 brought two sealed packets before her, one containing six burnt bones and another containing 40 burnt bones. She sealed both the packets and gave the same to that constable for taking it back to Raipur Medical College. 16. PW-13 Snigdha Jain Bansal, Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine Department, Medical College Hospital Raipur, states that on 16.8.2017 she examined the bones sent to her and opined that 40 bones of Carton No.1 could be of a female aged more than 20-21 years and less than 30 years approximately and 6 bones of Carton No.2 could be of a human child aged approximately 2-7 years. Her report is Ex.P/22. 17. As per FSL report Ex.P/46, the appellant is found to be biological father of Art. B which is humerus bone of deceased Priyanshu. However, no DNA profile could be obtained from Art. A i.e. tibia bone of deceased Sarojani Mahanand. It is thus clear from the DNA report (Ex.P/46) that the bones collected from the forest were of biological son of the appellant. 18. However, no DNA profile could be obtained from Art. A i.e. tibia bone of deceased Sarojani Mahanand. It is thus clear from the DNA report (Ex.P/46) that the bones collected from the forest were of biological son of the appellant. 18. PW-4 Rajni Mahanand, sister of the deceased Sarojani Mahanand, states that her sister Sarojani was in love with the appellant and they performed love marriage about 4-5 years ago and were residing at her house. They had a son namely Priyanshu Diwan who was murdered by the accused at the age of 1 ½ years only. She states that the accused wanted to perform second marriage and was going to perform engagement, on which she along with Sarojani went to the house of the accused at Village-Madwapathra where they met the sister and brother-in-law of the accused and the accused introduced Sarojani and Priyanshu to his parents as his wife and son. In para 4 she states that the parents of the accused told them that they were not aware of marriage of the accused with Sarojani, therefore, they performed his engagement and that they will break this engagement and requested them to go from there. Next day the accused made them sit in the bus and they returned to their house. In para 6 she states that on 1.4.2017 the accused came to her house at Ahiwara and took Sarojani and Priyanshu with them saying that he would keep them well at his house in the village. On the same day at around 7 pm when she phoned her sister Sarojani, she replied that they have just left the house of brother-in-law of the accused after taking meal there and are on the way and that she would call her after reaching the house of the accused. Next day i.e. 2.4.2017 when she phoned Sarojani, it was switched off and it continued for about 15-20 days. Meanwhile she would also phone the accused but he did not pick up her calls. However, 15 days after her sister Sarojani left her house, the accused once picked up her call and when she asked him as to where her sister is and make her talk to her, the accused replied that there is no network in the village, she is alright and that told that he would send the installment of Rs.1600/- of the loan taken by him. She states that only this much conversation took place between them. In para 8 she states that as she was not able to contact her sister over phone and the accused was not picking up her calls, being worried she went to the house of the accused at Madwapathra to see her sister where she saw that preparation for marriage of the accused was going on and there were number of guests. The accused and his brother-in-law took her behind the house and told that her sister is alright. When she asked them to make her talk to her, they replied that her phone is not connecting. Despite much insistence when they did not let her meet Sarojani, she suspected the accused and told him to bring her sister within two days. However, the elder brother of the accused requested for giving them four days time and thereafter she allowed them a week’s time, to which the accused expressed his satisfaction. 19. PW-4 further states that they waited for about two weeks but the accused did not come with her sister, so she along with her father, brother-in-law and other persons went to the house of the accused where he informed that on 2.4.2017 he had made her sit in the bus and does not know as to where she has gone. Thereafter, they went to PS- Magarload and lodged a missing report. She states that about three months thereafter they were informed by the police that they have got some clue regarding Sarojani. She was taken by the police to the place of occurrence where skeleton bones and skull were lying. Bones of the child was lying at some distance. 20. PW-5 Sudarshan also states that Sarojani was his daughter and that in April, 2017 his another daughter informed him that the accused has gone to his village Madwapathra with Sarojani and Priyanshu and thereafter they could not be contacted. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction of the appellant is based on the only evidence of last seen and memorandum which are weak type of evidence and not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 22. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction of the appellant is based on the only evidence of last seen and memorandum which are weak type of evidence and not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 22. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case proving the guilt of the accused/appellant and the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person’s guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be entertained about the accused person's innocence, demonstrating that it was the accused and none other who committed the offence. 23. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that PW-4 Rajni Mahanand is a witness of last seen and she remained firm in her statement. Learned trial Court observed that the evidence on record proved the facts that death of the deceased persons was homicidal; there was affair between the accused and Sarojani and from this relationship Priyanshu was born; dispute between the accused and Sarojani arose when she came to know about engagement being performed by the accused with a girl of his community; the deceased persons were last seen alive with the accused by PW-4; failure of the accused to give any satisfactory explanation to the incriminating circumstances; seizure of burnt bones and motorcycle used in commission of crime at the instance of accused; FSL report confirming accused as biological father of deceased Priyanshu and the accused being absent from his duty on the date of incident. 24. In this case, conduct of the accused is very crucial. 24. In this case, conduct of the accused is very crucial. It is clear from the record vide Ex.P/20 that the accused himself lodged report on 30.5.2017 at PS-Magarload regarding missing of his wife Sarojani stating that on 1.4.2017 at around 7 pm he made her sit in the bus but she did not reach Village-Ahiwara, Distt. Durg by 30.5.2017 and despite being searched she could not be located so far. Thus, it is evident that the accused himself admits that on 1.4.2017 he was with Sarojani and as per PW-4 Rajani he took Sarojani and Priyanshu from her house on 1.4.2017 and thereafter, she had no contact with her sister and Priyanshu. If the accused made them sit in the bus on 1.4.2017, then why he did not make efforts for locating them and lodge report within 2-3 days and waited for about two months and lodged the missing report only on 30.5.2017. This unusual conduct of the accused/appellant is highly suspicious and raises serious suspicion on him. 25. In his statement under Section 313 of CrPC the accused has either denied or expressed ignorance of all the facts and evidence except the facts regarding taking his blood sample for DNA test, its preservation and seizure. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 observed as under: “274. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution seeks to place reliance on the judgments of this Court in Peresadi vs. State of U.P., (1957) Crl.L.J. 328, State of M.P. vs. Ratan Lal, AIR 1994 SC 458 and Anthony D'Souza vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 1 SCC 259 where this Court has drawn an adverse inference for wrong answers given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the appellant-Manu Sharma has, inter alia, has taken false pleas in reply to question nos. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 67, 72, 75 and 210 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.” 27. In the matter of S. Govindaraju Vs. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 67, 72, 75 and 210 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.” 27. In the matter of S. Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “29. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. (Vide: Munish Mabar v State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912 ). 31. The prosecution successfully proved its case and, therefore, provisions of Section 113 of the Evidence Act 1872 come into play. The appellant/accused did not make any attempt, whatsoever, to rebut the said presumption contained therein. More so, Shanthi, deceased, died in the house of the appellant. He did not disclose as to where he had been at the time of incident. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act may also be made applicable as the appellant/accused had special knowledge regarding such facts, though he failed to furnish any explanation thus, the court could draw an adverse inference against him.” 28. In the present case also, the accused in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC denied his relationship with Sarojani and birth of Priyanshu from this relationship. He also denied that on 2.4.2017 he made the deceased persons sit in the bus. From this statement it is crystal clear that he instead of offering any satisfactory explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him made bald denial or expressed total ignorance of not only the incriminating circumstances but even the proved facts, except facts regarding taking of his blood samples for DNA test, its preservation and seizure. From this statement it is crystal clear that he instead of offering any satisfactory explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him made bald denial or expressed total ignorance of not only the incriminating circumstances but even the proved facts, except facts regarding taking of his blood samples for DNA test, its preservation and seizure. In light of above settled legal principles, this conduct of the accused serves as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and points towards his guilt. 29. From the evidence on record it stands proved that on 1.4.2017 the accused was with the deceased persons and on the same day at around 7 pm PW-4 Rajni Mahanand had a talk with her, and thereafter they were not seen alive by anyone. In these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the accused to explain as to when he parted company with them and where they went after leaving the house of PW-4 as all these facts were within the special knowledge of the accused but he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. PW-4 states in paras 7 & 8 of her deposition that since 2.4.2017 she was making calls repeatedly to her sister Sarojani but she was not responding and when she called the accused, he also did not pick up her calls. However, once he picked up her call and replied that her sister is alright. She states that when they reached the house of the accused, then also the accused told that Sarojani is alright. This statement of PW-4 was not rebutted in the cross-examination. Only it was suggested that Sarojani had lodged an FIR against one person and that person threatened her of life but no other defence was taken by the accused. The accused also failed to explain as to why he lodged missing report of the deceased after about two months on 30.5.2017. As per DNA report (Ex.P/46), it also stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bones of a male child recovered from the place of occurrence was of biological son of the appellant. 30. The accused also failed to explain as to why he lodged missing report of the deceased after about two months on 30.5.2017. As per DNA report (Ex.P/46), it also stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bones of a male child recovered from the place of occurrence was of biological son of the appellant. 30. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the conduct of the accused/appellant during the incident and subsequent thereto, the oral and documentary evidence as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the appellant based on the circumstantial evidence adduced by it beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant being distinguishable on facts are of no help to him. As such, the impugned judgment of learned trial Court calls for no interference by this Court and the same is hereby affirmed. 31. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, no order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. is required to be passed.