1. This D. B. Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15. 01. 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 73/2011 whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and has been sentenced as under:-

302 IPC: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 201 IPC: One years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bhanwar Lal S/o Saka Ram Meghwal R/o Village Rana, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali gave a written complaint (Ex. P/1) at about 8. 15 p. m. alleging therein that his elder sister Ukdi was married to one Bhanwar Lal s/o Shri Teja Ram Meghwal of village Pachpadariya about 10 years ago. One daughter Meema was born out of their wedlock. When Meema was eight months old, marriage of Ukdi and Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Teja Ram Meghwal was dissolved, therefore, Ukdis nata marriage was performed with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Jeeva Ram. Ukdi left her daughter Meema with her maternal. It was further stated that on 18. 05. 2011, appellant-accused, along with his daughter Pooja, came to his village to attend the marriage of daughter of one Jala Ram and at about 12. 00 noon, he came to his house, where he had conversation with his uncle Bagta Ram and thereafter he said that he will take Meema with him to Maalgarh to meet her mother as there were holidays at that time. Thereafter, appellant-accused took Meema and Pooja with him on his Suzuki Motorcycle No. RJ 22/2M-7015 towards Maalgarh. On the next day, i. e. on 19. 05. 2011, the complainant and his younger brother Pakaram went to the village of Ukdi for some work where they asked Ukdi about the arrival of Meema but she replied that Meema did not come to her and only Bhanwar Lal (appellantaccused) and Pooja came back. On hearing this, they both became shocked. They searched for Bhanwar Lal but could not find him. Then they called Bhanwar Lal (appellant-accused) on his Mobile No. 978114066 but he replied that he did not bring Meema and he is going for some work towards Pali. Thereafter, they searched for both of them but did not get any information. It was also stated that on 20. 05. 2011, he along with Sarpanch Govindram, Sagtaram and other relatives again went to Maalgarh where they met with Bhanwar Lal (appellant-accused) and on being asked he told nothing but when they pressurized to narrate truth, he replied that Meema is no more alive now and asked them to forget everything and to compromise the matter. On hearing this, they inquired from people and came to know that Bhanwar Lal (appellant-accused) has killed Meema and the dead body was thrown in the forests of village Radanada. They went to the spot and saw that the body was lying burnt in the field.

3. On this complaint, FIR No. 40/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation, the appellant-accused was arrested and after completing investigation, challan was filed for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed and charges were framed for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and trial of the case started.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/93 were exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution story and gave his explanation and he did not lead any evidence in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced as above vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15. 01. 2013.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15. 01. 2013, the appellant-accused prefers this appeal.

5. We have given anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused material on record.

6. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-accused that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. It is well settled proposition of law that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances when put together must form a chain from which it could be established that it is the accused only who has committed the crime and none else. The circumstances and the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused only. But, in the present case, the circumstances do not support within all human probability that the act was committed by the accused.

It was also contended that the in the present case, written complaint (Ex. P/1) on which the FIR was lodged, was given on 21. 05. 2011, whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 18. 05. 2011 and thereafter the complainant went to his sisters place on 19. 05. 2011 and on that day also he contacted the accused on telephone but at that time also he did not lodge any report and as per the FIR/written report, he came to know about the incident from some other people. Who were those people is not known to the prosecution because no such persons exist from whom the complainant came to know about the dead body. These many important witnesses were not even examined which creates a doubt that the complainant, in connivance with the police, has cooked up the story and then lodged the complaint. Therefore, the very basis of the prosecution story is primarily hearsay.

It was further contended that in the present case, the appellant-accused was arrested on 22. 05. 2011 vide arrest memo Ex. P/14 and the document Ex. P/15 was prepared on 23. 05. 2011. This document does not help the prosecution as the place was already known to the police at the time of lodging the report and the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, hence no reliance could be placed on such evidence/document.

It was next contended that the trial court has emphasized on the evidence of last seen and placing reliance on such evidence, has convicted the appellant-accused. In this regard, the important witness is child Poola, who was not examined by the prosecution and even the Investigating Officer has not found it appropriate to question her nor has he kept her in the list of witness, whereas she is the only witness as per the prosecution story itself who could narrate the actual incident. But the prosecution and the learned trial court has over-looked this important fact, which also creates a serious doubt in the prosecution version and apart from this Waga Ram Sargara S/o Adaji Sargara, the owner of the said farm where the dead body was recovered, was not examined by the prosecution nor does his name was placed in the list of witness, which again creates a serious doubt on the part of the prosecution and shows that the prosecution has completely failed to investigate the matter in a broad aspect.

It was contended that the prosecution has suggested the motive but has not examined the lady Indra to prove the story of motive and when, as stated by Ukdi, the complainant party wanted to perform nata marriage of Ukdi, which was opposed by the accused, the animosity to implicate the accused in the case cannot be ruled out. The lack of motive stands out like a sore thumb in the prosecution story.

The witnesses examined for the last seen were all closely related and belong from the same village as well as one family, which further creates a serious doubt because enmity is a double edged weapon and could be used either way. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the trial court to thrash out the truth from the falsehood, but the learned trial court has failed to do so. The lack of independent witness clouds the trial wherein the appellant-accused was seen taking Meema along with him in broad daylight. Merely on the basis of shaky evidence of last seen, in absence of other clinching evidence and further in absence of positive evidence about the probable time of death, it is very dangerous and unsafe to rely upon such shaky evidence in convicting the accused.

It was also argued that in the present case, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of extra judicial confession as from the perusal of the FIR itself and also from the other evidence, it is crystal clear that the same was obtained under coercion and it is also doubtful as to why the accused will confess his crime in-frontof the complainant party when there was no hope of help from those people. The settled proposition of law is that the confession should be free from any force or coercion. Therefore, under these circumstances, the appellant-accused cannot be encumbranced for such confession. But the learned trial court has failed to recognize this important material aspect of the case.

It was further contended that there were tyre marks at the place of occurrence but the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter in that light nor has he taken the mould from the place of occurrence just because there was a named FIR. He carried forward his investigation in the light as shown by the complainant. No efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to investigate the case independently. The Investigating Officer has failed to carry out an objective investigation into the case.

It was also argued that the motbirs kept for recovery were also the police officials and no independent person was kept as motibr, which creates a doubt in the conduct of the investigation. The entire prosecution story and the investigation is full of gaping holes and unsustainable in the court of law. The prosecution has not examined the blood of the appellant-accused and in absence of the blood report of the appellant-accused, merely presence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant-accused, did not connect him from the alleged crime more particularly when there is no evidence of any injury mark on the body of the deceased. The investigation has followed the complainants story rather then to carry out an independent investigation/inquiry.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and contended that although there is no eye- witness but the prosecution has established the circumstantial evidence, which indicates that all the circumstances, when put together formed a chain from which it could be established that it is the accused only who has committed the crime and none else The prosecution witnesses PW-1 Bhanwarlal, PW-5 Vagta Ram, PW-17 Smt. Pepi Devi and PW-18 Teja Ram have last seen the appellant-accused with deceased Meema together and in their statements, have stated that on the date of occurrence, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal took deceased Meema on his motorcycle and at that time, appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was wearing white shirt and white dhoti and Meema was wearing green jumpher and embroided lehanga and all the witnesses PW-1 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Sonaram, PW-4 Govindram, PW-5 Vagta Ram, PW-9 Lumbaram, PW-12 Vagtaram S/o Puna Ji, PW-14 Kaluram and PW-18 Tejaram supported this fact that the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal has made extra judicial confession before them about murder of Meema and admitted that he killed Meema by strangulation and thrown her body in the fields of Rada Nada. According to the prosecution, when the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was asked about Meema, then he answered that he did not know. The appellant-accused took Meema from the village Rana on his motorcycle to Maalgarh with the intention to take Meema to meet her mother. But, when the complainant and Paka Ram asked on Mobile No. 978411466, he refused and stated that he did not take Meema with him from village Rana. When the villagers gathered on the next day on 20. 05. 2011 and inquired about Meema, he admitted that Meema was no more alive and that he has killed her by strangulation and thrown her body in the field of Rada Nada. Thereafter, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal absconded from his house. In this way, after making extra-judicial confession, the appellant-accused absconded. Green coloured jumpher was lying near the body of the deceased Meema, which was recovered and human blood of Group B was detected. At the instance of the appellant-accused, white coloured shirt and blood stained dhoti were recovered and also the buttons of shirt were recovered and human blood of Group B was also found on the said dhoti. The motor-cycle was also recovered at the instance of the appellant-accused. DNA Test of the dead body of Meema was conducted and from the DNA Test, it was confirmed that Meema was the daughter of Ukdi. From the postmortem, it is established that the deceased was less than 14 years of age who was murdered within three days by strangulation. From the prosecution evidence, motive for causing the death of Meema was also established. The appellant-accused was the step father of the deceased Meema and he had illicit relation with Indra, the aunty (ekSlh) of the deceased Meema and this fact was known to Meema and she narrated these facts to her maternal grand-mother (ukuh). i. e. mother of Indra and this was the reason that the appellantaccused had motive for committing murder.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and evidence placed on record.

9. Indisputably, entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, following triad test must be meted out:

i) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt;

ii) that the circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and

iii) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.

{vide Mahmood v. State of UP, 1976 AIR(SC) 69}

Honble the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR(SC) 1622 held that in a case where there is no eye-witness and the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence then following conditions are required to be fulfilled before the case can be said to be fully established:

"1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and 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; and

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.

These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti. "

In Ramreddy Rajshekhanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 3 Supreme 175, the Apex Court held as under:

"26. It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. "

In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1952 AIR(SC) 354, the Honble Apex Court held that where there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence answers the questions, essential to the proof of the offence only vaguely and indefinitely and is not incompatible with the theory of innocence of the accused, there is no evidence on which the accused can be found guilty. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1957 AIR(SC) 637, the Apex Court observed:

"12. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. "

In Ashish Batham v. State of MP, 2002 7 SCC 317 [LQ/SC/2002/923] , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that mere suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be take the place of legal proof. It was observed as under:

"Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. "

Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, we have to adjudge as to whether the circumstances on which the prosecution has relied, are established by clear and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances said to be proved exclude every other hypothesis save the one that the appellants are guilty of the charge.

10. We have examined the entire evidence placed on record as well as documentary evidence. As per the prosecution story, the complainants sister Smt. Ukdi got married 10 years ago with Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Tejaram. Out of their wedlock one daughter Meema borne. Just after 8 months of the birth of Meema, the relation between Ukdi and Bhanwarlal S/o Tejaram ended and Smt. Ukdi, along with her daughter Meema, came to stay with her parents. After some time, nata marriage of Ukdi was performed with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal in village Maalgarh where Smt. Ukdi gave birth to two daughters. Meema, after nata marriage of Smt. Ukdi, continued to stay with her maternal grandparents. As per the prosecution, on 18. 05. 2011, appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal came to his in-laws house with her daughter Pooja in village Rana and stated that they should send Meema with him so that Meema could meet her mother and after that he will send back Meema at the residence of her maternal grand-parents and at that time there were vacations in her school. Thereafter, the appellant-accused took Meema and Pooja on his motor-cycle. PW1 Bhanwarlal S/o Sakaran, the complainant, in his examination-inchief, fully supported the prosecution case and stated that on 18. 05. 2011, the appellant-accused, who is present in court, came with his daughter Pooja at about 12. 00 in his village Rana. At that time, his father Sakaram, uncle Vagtaram and mother Pepi Devi were present at the house. In the presence of all these four persons, the appellant-accused Bhanwarlal assured that he will take Meema and get her meet with mother Smt. Ukdi and thereafter he will leave Meema back to maternal grand-parents. This witness further stated that the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was driving motor-cycle and thereafter Pooja was sitting behind him and Meema was sitting behind Pooja and Bhanwar Lal was wearing white dhoti and white shirt and Meema was wearing green jumpher and lehanga. In this way, PW-1 has given the last seen evidence and stated that he as well as Vagta Ram, Sakaram and Smt. Pepi Devi have seen that the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal and Meema went together. PW-5 Vagta Ram has also supported the statement of PW-1. PW-17 Smt. Pepi Devi, who is the maternal grand-mother of deceased Meema, also supported the statement of PW-1 and PW-5. All the three witnesses further stated that in connection with the marriage of Jalarams daughter, appellant-accused came to their village and at about 1. 00 p. m. , took Meema to village Maalgarh. PW-13 Jalaram also supported the statements of these witnesses and stated that there was marriage of his daughter and in that marriage, appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal came as barati. He stayed there for two days in the village Rana and on the next day, at about 12. 00, he left the house. After two days, the maternal grand-father of Meema, Sakaram, told him that appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal took Meema to the village Maalgarh and Velaram has seen him near the bus stand with Meema. He has identified appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal in the court.

11. Pw-15 Velaram, who is an independent witness in this case, stated that he knows the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal. Two years ago, he gave contract for construction of house to the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal and for this reason he is known to him. It was also stated that he also knows Smt. Ukdi, wife of the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal, who is daughter of Sakaram Meghwal of his village and further stated that Smt. Ukdi was married in Pachpadariya village to Bhanwarlal Meghwal S/o Shri Tejaram and Smt. Ukdi lived there for two years and one daughter Meema was born during their marriage. After two years, their relations came to an end and thereafter Smt. Ukdi came to stay with her parents along with Meema. Thereafter, nata marriage of Smt. Ukdi was performed with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal and Meema was living in Village Rana with her maternal grandparents. On 18. 05. 2011, when he was returning to home after farming work and when he was going near pond in the village taking buffalo for drinking water, near about 1. 15 p. m. , he saw the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal near the bus stand. He saw two girls sitting on his motor-cycle and the motor-cycle was driven by the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal. Pooja was sitting behind Bhanwar Lal and Meema was sitting behind Pooja and the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was wearing white dhoti and shirt and Meema was wearing jumpher of green colour and lehanga of pink colour. He saw Bhanwar Lal along with his daughters going from Rana to Maalgarh. This witness stated that he saw the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal along with Pooja and Meema on motorcycle going from village Rana to Maalgarh. This witness has also stated the date and time, which tallied with the date and time stated by other witnesses.

From the evidence placed on record, it cannot be accepted that all the witnesses for the last seen evidence were closely related and there is no independent witness. The prosecution was successful in establishing the last seen evidence.

12. From the prosecution evidence, it is revealed that from village Rana, Meema and Pooja were seen going on motor-cycle with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal but Meema did not reach to Maalgarh, to the house of Smt. Ukdi. When the appellantaccused was asked about Meema, then at the first instance, he told that he did not take Meema along with him but when 7-8 villagers of village Rana gathered and inquired from the appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal about Meema, then he made extra-judicial confession and stated that he has committed murder of Meema and her body was thrown in the fields of Rada Nada. After making extra-judicial confession, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal absconded. The prosecution examined PW-1 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Sonaram, PW-4 Govind Ram, PW-5 Vagtaram, PW-9 Lumbaram, PW-12 Vagtaram S/o Punma Ji, PW-14 Kaluram and PW-18 Tejaram.

PW-1 Bhanwarlal, in his statement, stated that on 19. 05. 2011, he and his brother Pakaran, went to meet her sister in the village Maalgarh. At that time, their sister Smt. Ukdi and Pooja were there and they did not see Mema. When they inquired about Meema, their sister Smt. Ukdi stated that only Pooja came with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal and Meema did not come there. On this, Pakaram contacted the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal on telephone on which he stated that he is out of village and going towards Pali and he did not bring Meema from village Rana. PW-10 Paka Ram stated that the complainant PW-1 Bhanwarlal is his brother and he further corroborated the facts of marriage of her sister firstly with Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Tejaram of village Pachpadariya and the birth of Meema, thereafter end of first marriage and, thereafter nata marriage of Ukdi with the appellantaccused and birth of two daughters Pooja and Sattu. It was further stated by him that on 18. 05. 2011, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal came to the village Rana to attend the marriage of daughter of Jalaram and further stated that the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal took Meema and Pooja to maalgarh. On that day, the appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal came to him at about 5. 00-5. 30 p. m. When he asked the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal about Meema, then he stated that she is in Maalgarh. After sitting their for 10-15 minutes, the appellant-accused returned to Maalgarh. On 19. 05. 2011, when he along with his brother PW-1 Bhanwarlal went to Maalgarh and asked Smt. Ukdi about Meema, then she told that Meema did not come there on which he contacted the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal on mobile No. 978211466 who stated that he was speaking from Pali and he did not take Meema from the village Rana.

From the evidence placed on record, it is manifestly clear that PW-1 Bhanwar Lal and PW-10 Pakaram, on the next day of incident, went to the village Maalgarh at the residence of the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal where they asked their sister Smt. Ukdi about Meema who told that Meema did not come there. So far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, it was stated that on 20. 05. 20911, at about 10-11. 00 a. m. , PW-1 Bhanwarlal along with Govind Ram, Tejaram, Sonaram, Lumbaram, Kaluram and Vagta Ram, all residents of Village Rana, went to Mallgarh and there Ukdi and appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal were present. All the persons asked the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal about Meema. The appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal stated that he did not know but further stated that On this reply, all the persons asked the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal that if Meema is not alive, then where is her body. On further inquiry, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal stated that, In cross-examination, PW-1 Bhanwarlal admitted that in the presence of all, the appellant-accused admitted that .

It is important to note that there was no cross-examination of this witness on the point of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-accused nor any suggestive question was put that such extra-judicial confession was obtained under pressure. PW-3 Sonaram also supported the statement made by PW-1 Bhanwarlal and stated that, . On further inquiry, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal stated that he has murdered Meema by strangulation. The appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal made extra-judicial confession before 8 persons and stated that .

PW-1 Bhanwarlal, PW-5 Vagtaram, PW-10 Pakaram, PW-11 Khumaram, PW-12 Vagtaram S/o Punma Ji and PW-14 Kaluram also corroborated the statement regarding extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal. From the evidence placed on record, all the witnesses corroborated the fact that on inquiry, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal admitted in presence of eight persons that, All these witnessed further stated that when the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was asked to come with them to Rada Nada, he refused and absconded from the place. From the cross-examinations of all the witnesses, nothing has come out from which it can be gathered that the statements of these witnesses cannot be believed. When all the witnesses went to the field of Rada Nada, they found pieces of bidis, marks of motor-cycle and foot-prints. The body was burnt but the skeleton was seen and near the dead body, green coloured cloth, half burnt, was seen. On seeing the face, all the persons identified that the body was of Meema, aged 8 years.

13. Pw-1 Bhanwarlal, in his statement stated about the dead body found in Rada Nada. He further stated the appellant-accused did not accompany them and absconded. All the eight persons, searched the dead body. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that it is wrong to say that the body was completely burnt and only skeleton was there. He stated that the face could be identified. All the witnesses PW-4 Govindram, PW-5 Vagtaram, PW-9 Lumbaram, PW-10 Paka Ram, PW-11 Khumaram, PW-12 Vagtaram, PW-14 Kaluram, PW-17 Pepi Devi and PW-18 Tejaram supported his statement.

PW-22 Rajendra Singh, Investigating Officer, also stated that near Rada Nada, a dead body in burnt state was found and a green coloured cloth, half burnt, was also found and naksha mauka was prepared, which is Ex. P/2 and recovery memo Ex. P/6 was also prepared. Memo of dead body Ex. P/3 and panchnama Ex. P/4 were also prepared. In the panchnama, it was stated that the death was caused by strangulation.

From the evidence of the place of occurrence, it is manifestly clear that after causing murder, the body was burnt with the object to disappear the evidence.

On perusal of the postmortem report Ex. P/10, it is found that for the purpose of DNA Test, two femer bones and two molar teeth were taken from the dead body and a blood sample of her mother Smt. Ukdi was taken and memo Ex. P/11 was prepared. The said sample was deposited in the malkhana by Constable Gautam and from the malkhana, the samples were deposited with FSL, Jaipur by Constable Gangavishan along with forwarding letter Ex. P/84, which was prepared by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jalore. Ex. P/86 is the receipt and the DNA Report issued by the FSL, Jaipur was placed on record before the court vide Ex. P/13. From the perusal of the DNA Report Ex. P/13, it is found that the deceased Meema was the biological daughter of Smt. Ukdi. PW-6 Smt. Ukdi also admitted in her evidence that 11 years ago, she was married to Bhanwarlal Meghwal r/o Pachpadariya and a daughter Meema was borne out of their wedlock and thereafter their relations ended and she stayed with her parents for near about three years and after that her nata marriage was performed with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal at Maalgarh and she left her daughter Meema with her maternal grand-parents.

From the evidence placed on record, it is clear that Meema was borne out of her earlier marriage and after nata marriage with the appellant-accused, three more daughters borne out of which one died and other are Pooja and Sattu. From the evidence placed on record, it is established that the dead body recovered was of deceased Meema.

14. So far as recoveries are concerned, in the prosecution evidence, PW-1 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Sonaram, PW-4 Govindram, PW-5 Vagtaram S/o Roopaji, PW-9 Lumbaram, PW-10 Pakaram, PW-11 Khumaram, PW-12 Vagtaram S/o Punma Ji, PW-14 Kaluram, PW-17 Smt. Pepi Devi and PW-18 Tejaram have stated that they went to the place of occurrence, then near the dead body, a green coloured blood-stained cloth was seen by them and the last-seen witnesses have clearly stated that at the time when the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal took deceased Meema, she was wearing jumpher of green colour. PW-22 Rajendra Singh, Investigating Officer has also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, then he saw green coloured half burnt cloth, which was recovered and memo Ex. P/6 was prepared. PW-1 Bhanwarlal and PW-4 Govind Ram supported the recovery vide Ex. P/6 and theses witnesses and PW-3 Sonaram have also proved the preparation of fard mauka Ex. P/2. The arrest memo Ex. P/14 was also prepared and the place of occurrence was also verified, as per the statement of PW-22 Rajendra Singh. On 24. 05. 2011, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal gave information that at the time of incident, he was wearing white shirt and white dhoti. At the time of strangulation, due to struggle, one button of his shirt was detatched, which was kept in the right pocket and the said shirt, blood-stained dhoti were kept in an iron box in a room of his house and the motor-cycle RJ 22/2M 7015, which was used for taking Meema from the Village Rana to Maalgarh, was kept in his house in bada. At the instance of information by the appellantaccused, white shirt, blood-stained dhoti and button were recovered vide Ex. P/16 and Ex. P/17. PW-20 Anil Godara supported all these recoveries. PW-22 Rajendra Singh, in his examination-inchief, stated that during the investigation, two packets marked A and C, were deposited in the malkhana, which were sent to FSL, Jaipur with constable Nimbaram. In this connection forwarding letter Ex. P/88 was obtained. The packets A and C were deposited with the FSL, Jaipur and FSL Report Ex. P/94 was obtained. From the report, it was found that human blood of Group B was found. With respect of packet marked A, FSL Report Ex. P/95 was received. From the perusal of both the reports, Ex. P/94 and Ex. P/95, it is found that the cloth, recovered from the place of occurrence, was the same cloth which was worn by Meema and the blood stain found on the dhoti, which the accused was wearing, human blood of Group B was found and no explanation was given by the appellant-accused about the human blood of Group B on his dhoti. It was for him to explain the circumstances against him. PW-22 Rajendra Singh, Investigating Officer has further stated about the recoveries and photography of the place of occurrence and also corroborated the fact that the appellant-accused was using Mobile No. 9784114066 for the long time and the SIM of that mobile was issued in the name of Kapoor Chand S/o Chelaram, r/o Pali. In this connection, statement of PW-14 Kapoor Chand was recorded and Ex. P/91 was placed on record. The possession of SIM of this mobile number Ex. P/92 and call detail Ex. P/93 were taken on record, according to which, on 18. 05. 2011, at about 3. 47 p. m. , appellant-accused was in the range of Bhanwari Village Tower Location, which was between the village Rana and place of incident. On 18. 05. 2011, at about 1. 10. p. m. , the mobile location of the appellant-accused was near Kulthana Village Tower, which is near the village Maalgarh, which is near to the place where the murder was caused. From the perusal of Ex. P/92 and Ex. P/93, the statement of witnesses are fully corroborated. The witness PW-16 Kapoor Chand, in his statement stated that he used to sale fruits and vegetables near Bus Stand on thela in Pali City and the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal is son-in-law of his mothers brother. About 5 years ago, he came to him at Pali and stated that he has no papers for taking SIM and requested him for taking SIM in his name. On this, he took a SIM on his Voters Card and handed over the same to the appellant-accused, which was exclusively used by him. He has fully corroborated the fact that he got issued SIM in his name and handed over the same to the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal and as per the call-detail of that number, at the time of incident, the appellant-accused was present near the tower location.

15. Pw-22 Rajendra Singh, the Investigating Officer, in his statement stated that the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal, two years ago, took a contract for construction of house and in that respect, he stayed in Village Rana in the house of his in-laws and during that period, the appellant-accused came in contact with his sister-in-law Indra and developed illicit relations. The deceased Meema seen the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal and Indra in a compromising position and stated this fact to her grand-mother, i. e. the mother of Indra. It was found in the investigation that the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal used to contact on phone with Indra in her in-laws house on which his mother-in-law Pepi Devi instructed him for not contacting Indra in her in-laws house. At that time, Meema was standing there who spoke in between them and narrated the facts of seeing them in a compromising position and from that time, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was not happy with her and this was the reason that after committing the murder he tried to disappear all the evidence. The appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal, during investigation, admitted the fact of having illicit relations with Indra and also admitted that deceased Meena was having knowledge of such relations. In the crossexamination, this witness admitted that the statement of Indra was not recorded because the fact of illicit relation was confirmed from the evidence of other witnesses. PW-17 Smt. Pepi Devi, in her statement, stated that . The witnesses PW-1 Bhanwarlal, PW-10 Paka Ram and PW-11 Khumaram have also supported the statement of PW-17 Smt. Pepi Devi. From the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing has come out that these witnesses were giving statements to falsely implicate the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal. The prosecution was successful in establishing the motive beyond reasonable doubt.

16. From the evidence placed on record, as discussed above, it cannot be believed that the complainant, on connivance with the police, has cooked-up a story and then lodged the complaint. The incident took place on 18. 05. 2011 and the FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged on 21. 05. 2011 at 8. 15 a. m. On 18. 05. 2011, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal, in the day time near about 1. 00 p. m. , took Meema with him on motor-cycle so that Meema could met her mother. On the next day, on 19. 05. 2011, the complainant Bhanwarlal and his brother Pakaram went to Maalgarh where they did not find Meema and on asking, Smt. Ukdi told that Pooja and his father appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal came there in time but Meema did not come. When the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was contacted on phone, he replied that he did not bring Meema with him on which the complainant along with his brother came to their village on 20. 05. 2011 and took village Sarpanch and other relatives with him and again went to Maalgarh and asked the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal as to where was Meema on which the appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal told that he killed Meema and thrown her body in the forest of Rada Nada. Thereafter, all these persons went to Rada Nada where they found the dead body in the fields. Up to that time, the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal absconded. In this way, complete series of events have been mentioned as to what happened during the period between 18. 05. 2011 to 20. 05. 2011. Before the recovery of dead body, it was not possible for them to lodge FIR and up to that time, the complainant was not having any knowledge nor a missing report could be lodged without knowing the actual facts. PW-1 Bhanwarlal, in his examination-in-chief, stated that after recovery of dead body of Meema, they came back to their village Rana and after having discussion with the near relatives, lodged FIR on 21. 05. 2011. The report was actually written by Govind Ram, who is the son of the Sarpanch of the village. PW-4 Govind Ram, in his crossexamination has stated that Smt. Ukdi is the daughter of village and the appellant-accused was her husband, therefore, the report was not lodged at that time. PW-10 Paka Ram has stated that after visiting the place of incident, they returned to their home and informed the other members of their family about the incident and thereafter the report was lodged on 21. 05. 2011. It was stated by him that it is wrong to state that nata marriage of Ukdi was to be performed after breaking her relation with the appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal and for that reason Meema was killed. PW11 Khuma Ram, in his cross-examination has stated that on 20. 05. 2011, they came to know about the fact that the appellantaccused Bhanwar Lal has killed Meema and thereafter report was lodged and corroborated the facts contained in the FIR. PW-17 Smt. Pepi Devi, in her statement, also corroborated the statements of other witnesses and specifically stated about what transpired in between 18. 05. 2011 to 20. 05. 2011 and the FIR was lodged on 21. 05. 2011. So far as the statement of Smt. Ukdi is concerned, she has turned hostile because she is the wife of the appellant-accused and has two daughters Pooja and Sattu from their wedlock and presently she is residing at Maalgarh in the house of the appellant-accused. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-accused that the complainant party intended to give Smt. Ukdi in nata to some other person and the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal opposed and because of this reason Vagtaram, after killing Meema, falsely implicated the appellant-accused. This defence cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the deceased Meema was residing with her maternal grand-parents from her childhood and if the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal was opposing the nata of Smt. Ukdi with some other person, then there was no reason for killing Meema. The statement of PW-6 Smt. Ukdi causes no effect on the prosecution story.

From the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the deceased Meema was last seen with the appellant-accused Bhanwar Lal. She was wearing jumpher of green colour and a cloth of green colour was recovered near the dead body of the deceased. On forensic examination, human blood of group B was found on the said cloth of green colour and the same group of blood was found on the dhoti of the appellant-accused, which was recovered at the instance of the appellant-accused himself. It has also come in the evidence that the appellant-accused developed illicit relation with his sister-in-law Indra and he was seen in a compromising position Indra by the deceased Meena, which she narrated to her maternal grand-mother Smt. Pepi, who complained-off the same to the appellant-accused and for this reason he was having grudge with the deceased Meema. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the motive.

17. In view of the above, it is clear that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the chain of circumstances, which when put together, established that it is the appellant-accused only who has committed crime. In this way, the circumstances, which have been proved by the evidence placed on record, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis sought to be proved against the appellant-accused. There is no ground for interference in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court for conviction and punishment. In the result, the appeal failed and is dismissed. The judgment under appeal is upheld.