JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. [ENTITY], a young married woman, was found murdered in her in laws house on January 28, 1997. At the time of death she was pregnant and the age of male child was approximately 34 to 38 weeks. [ENTITY] was married to [ENTITY] (appellant) on May 18, 1996 and most of the time after her marriage she had remained at her parental house. Only two days before her, death i.e. on January 26, 1997 [ENTITY] took her to his house. [ENTITY] was indicted for having committed murder of [ENTITY] and vide judgment dated September 10, 1998, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror (Alwar) convicted and sentenced him under [SECTION] [ACT] to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000A, in default to further suffer. One Month Imprisonment. Impugning this judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2. As per the prosecution story a written report was submitted by informant [ENTITY], at police Station Behror on January 29, 1997 at 1.35 A.M. against his son [ENTITY] (appellant) with the averments that his son [ENTITY] was married to [ENTITY] (since deceased) on May 18, 1996. [ENTITY] brought [ENTITY] from her parental home on January 26, 1997. At about 10 AM on January 28, 1997 when the informant was leaving his house for office, he had noticed some exchange of hot words between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Subsequently around 4 PM he received information that [ENTITY] was lying unconscious in the house. The informant rushed to his house and on reaching there he found [ENTITY] dead. The informant suspected that it was [ENTITY] who had killed [ENTITY].
3. On the basis of the said information a case under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of [ENTITY] was conducted. Inquest report and memo of site plan were drawn. The appellant was arrested and at his instance belt allegedly used in commission of the offence got recovered. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror. Charge under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as eleven witnesses. In the explanation under [SECTION] [ACT], the appellant claimed innocence. The appellant himself appeared as a defence witness and raised plea of alibi. In support of his plea, the appellant produced three more defence witnesses, who stated that while appellant was away and [ENTITY] was alone in the house two unknown persons visited her. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.
4. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking is as under:
(i) On the fateful day [ENTITY] was last seen with the appellant and the informant [ENTITY], the father of appellant, while leaving his house for office, at 10 AM, had noticed some exchange of hot words between the appellant and [ENTITY] and she was found dead in the afternoon.
(ii) [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were alone in the first floor of the house and except the old grand-mother of the appellant, no other person was present in the house. Oil) Cause of death of [ENTITY] was asphyxia due to strangulation and belt used for being the neck of [ENTITY] was recovered at the instance of the appellant.
(iv) Appellant raised false plea of alibi.
5. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. [ENTITY] canvassed that in the event of there being only circumstantial evidence, those circumstances must be proved to be such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocent of the accused. The court should therefore be watchful and ensure that conjectures do not take place of legal proof. It has been the contention of learned counsel that the prosecution has utterly failed to link up the chain and as matter of fact the snap in the chain is not very far to seek. According to learned counsel there is no cogent evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of his own wife [ENTITY]. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive for the alleged crime. So far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, there is nothing unusual about it. A wife is normally last seen in the company of her husband. The evidence created through alleged information and consequent recovery of belt is per se fake and fabricated. The injuries around the neck of the deceased do not appear to have been caused by using the belt.
6. In order to adjudge as to whether chain of the circumstances has been linked up or not, let us advert to the testimony of witnesses examined at the trial. The evidence of Dr. [ENTITY] (PW. 6), who performed autopsy, shows that [ENTITY] sustained following antemortem injuries:-
(i) Abrasion: 3 x 0.5 cm on anterior aspect of right leg upper part. (ii) Bruise: 3 x 0.5 cm on the right popliteal fossa. (iii) Right upper lid swollen and blue in colour. (iv) Three Abrasions on the neck of sizes:-
(a) 6 x 2 cm on the anterior aspect of middle of neck.
(b) 5 x 2 cm on the left side of neck extending from mid line.
(c) 4 x 3 cm on the left side of neck lateral to abrasion No. (b).
All the three abrasions were dry, hard and perchanent like, brown in colour. On dissection extravasation of blood was found present into sub cutenedous tissue.
Organs generation (external and internal):
Healthy, pregnant uterus extending above umbilicus having dead male child, had downwards, average built scalp hair well developed, ear cartilage developed, bread niddle present 3-4 mm. in size, plantal and palmer creases present. Scrotum deeply pigmented and adequate sugar present. Gestationai age of child approximately 34 to 38 weeks.
Cause of death was ASPHYXIA due to STRANGULATION. Dr. [ENTITY] was cross examined at length. A suggestion was also given to him that it could have been a case of suicide but this suggestion did not find his approval.
7. [ENTITY] (PW. 1) in his deposition stated that [ENTITY] was married to his son [ENTITY] on May 18, 1996. She had been to her parental house for the last 2-3 months before [ENTITY] took her on January 26, 1997 to his house. On January 28, 1997 while he was about to leave his house, he found [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] laughing and joking. He then gave a word of caution to them. There was no body in the house except his old mother. At about 3- 4 PM he received information in Tehsil that [ENTITY] was lying unconscious. On reaching the house he found [ENTITY] dead. The prosecution after declaring [ENTITY] hostile, cross examined him. In his cross examination he however admitted that written report Ex.P-1 was lodged by him.
8. [ENTITY] (PW. 2), uncle of deceased [ENTITY], deposed that on January 28, 1997 one [ENTITY] informed him that [ENTITY] was ill and admitted to Kotputli Hospital. When he reached at village Hamidpur, he found people telling that [ENTITY] had killed anita. On being asked as to what had happened, the father of [ENTITY] told him that [ENTITY] had murdered [ENTITY]. At the time of death [ENTITY] had pregnancy of 7-8 months. In the cross examination counsel for the appellant gave following suggestion to the witness:-
"In fact [ENTITY] herself had committed suicide because she became pregnant much before entering into marriage with [ENTITY]"
The witness answered this suggestion in negative. [ENTITY] (PW. 3), father of the deceased, corroborated the testimony of [ENTITY] (PW. 2). [ENTITY] (PW. 4) Motbir of seizure memos, stated that pieces of bangles and belt were lying at the place of occurrence itself between the two Costs. [ENTITY], Investigation Officer (PW. 10) deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of [ENTITY] (Ex.P-14) recovery of leather belt used in commission of offence, was effected by him vide Ex.P-9. Iron-buckle and leather ring of the belt and pieces of bangles were however seized by him from the place of occurrence.
9. Appellant [ENTITY] who appeared as a witness as DW. 4 in his deposition stated that on January 26, 1996 when he took [ENTITY] from her parental house, she had a child in her wonb. On January 28, 1996 he and [ENTITY] visited to [ENTITY] for her check-up by lady Doctor whose name was also [ENTITY]. They left the house at 7.00 AM and came back around 11 AM. Finding the meals ready in the house, they decided to eat it. They had shared the meals in one plate while laughing and joking together. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] cautioned them not to behave casually in the village. After eating the food he left his house on scooter and went to the shop of Jhasla Electronics belonging to one [ENTITY] and remained there upto 5.30 PM. When he left the house his wife was happy. After reaching the house at 5.30 PM, he found people assembled there. [ENTITY] then told him that two boys aged 20 years carne after he left the house. In the cross examination he stated that [ENTITY] was 20 kms. away from his village and Dr. [ENTITY] had checked up his wife by a machine. He further stated that some months back when his wife left for her parental house he could not notice her pregnancy.
10. [ENTITY] (DW: 1) deposed that on the fateful day he along with [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were playing cards in the field situated in front of the house of [ENTITY]. Around 11 PM [ENTITY] and his wife [ENTITY] came on the scooter and went inside the house. Around 12.30 PM [ENTITY] left his house. Around 1.30 PM two boys came on a motor-cycle to meet [ENTITY] and remained with her about 45 minutes. He brought this fact into the notice of [ENTITY].
11. [ENTITY] (DW. 2) toed the testimony of [ENTITY] whereas [ENTITY] (DW. 3) deposed that on the fateful day [ENTITY] came to his shop around 1.30 PM and remained there till the evening. In the cross examination he admitted that [ENTITY]'s elder brother got married with his sister's daughter,
12. Salient features of the case, noticed by us, may be summarized thus:-
(i) After her marriage with [ENTITY] on: May 18, 1996, [ENTITY] remained most of the time at her parental house. [ENTITY] did not pursuade her to reside with him.
(ii) On January 26, 1997 [ENTITY] took [ENTITY] to his house from her parental house. [ENTITY] had pregnancy of over eight months and [ENTITY] knew that delivery could be expected at any moment.
(iii) According to [ENTITY] while [ENTITY] left some months back for her parental house, he could not notice from her appearance that she was pregnant.
(iv) On January 26, 1997 [ENTITY] came to her husband house and only after two days i.e. on January 28, 1997 she was found dead.
(v) As per FIR [ENTITY], while leaving for the office at 10 AM, saw [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] exchanging hot words.
(vi) Initial defence of the appellant [ENTITY] as introduced to [ENTITY] (PW. 2) and Dr. [ENTITY] (PW. 6) was that [ENTITY] had committed suicide as she became pregnant much before entering into marriage but subsequently appellant adopted new theory of defence according to which two boys visited [ENTITY] and remained in the house for 45 minutes. Thus an attempt was made to create impression that those two boys were responsible for her death.
(vii) [ENTITY] had seen [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] together in the house at 10 AM whereas [ENTITY] deposed that he and [ENTITY] were not in the house at 10 AM and came back to the house around 11 AM after visiting the Doctor at [ENTITY].
(viii) [ENTITY] (DW. 1) and [ENTITY] (DW. 2) also stated that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came back to the house on a scooter at 11 AM. Both these witnesses deposed that two unknown boys visited [ENTITY] before her death.
(ix) Doctor [ENTITY] [ENTITY] was not examined by the appellant, even prescription slip and check-up report were not produced.
(x) As per the deposition of [ENTITY] (DW. 3) [ENTITY] used to attend his shop at 9 AM but on the fateful day he came to the shop around 1.30 PM.
(xi) While lodging FIR, [ENTITY] did not hesitate to name his son [ENTITY] as an accused.
(xii) Cause of death of [ENTITY] was asphyxia due to strangulation and at the time of her death male child of the age of about 38 weeks was found dead in her womb.
(xiii) Belt allegedly used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of [ENTITY].
13. It is well settled that an accused can be condemned a convict only on clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. We have therefore to see whether the evidence adduced at the trial can be regard sufficient to base the conviction of the appellant.
14. The first circumstantial evidence against the appellant is that deceased [ENTITY] was last seen with him. [ENTITY] categorically deposed that while leaving his house for office he had seen [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] laughing and joking and he had cautioned them. Although in FIR [ENTITY] stated that at 10 AM he had noticed some exchange of hot words between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] is the father of the appellant and we see no reason to disbelieve his testimony. While considering the contention of learned counsel that there is nothing unusual about it as wife is normally last seen in the company of her husband. We have also to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances. The marriage of appellant and [ENTITY], as already noticed, had been taken place on May 18, 1996 and before [ENTITY] took [ENTITY] to his house on January 26, 1997 she had been to her parental house for the last 2-3 months. [ENTITY] was pregnant and found dead on January 28, 1997. When some months back [ENTITY] proceeded to her parental house the appellant could not notice from her appearance that she was pregnant. From the autopsy report of [ENTITY] it appears that at the time of her death, she had in her womb a dead male child of the age of about 38 weeks. Initial defence of the appellant as introduced to [ENTITY] (PW. 2) and Dr. [ENTITY] (PW. 6) was that [ENTITY] had committed suicide as she became pregnant much before entering into marriage. In view of initial defence adopted by the appellant we are of the view that circumstances of last seen assumes importance. As per his own admission the appellant was with [ENTITY] till 12.30 PM on the fateful day. [ENTITY] was last seen alive only by [ENTITY] at 10 AM with the appellant.
15. The second circumstance against the appellant is that when [ENTITY] left his house for office at 10 AM, only [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and old grand-mother remained in the house. Appellant himself admitted in his deposition that when he left the house at 12.30 PM [ENTITY] and old grand-mother were there. From the testimony of [ENTITY] and appellant it is established that on the fateful day [ENTITY] was alone in the company of appellant and old grand-mother of the appellant was so infirm that neither she could hear nor see anything.
16. The third circumstance against the appellant is that death of [ENTITY] was caused due to strangulation and belt used for tying the neck of [ENTITY] was recovered at the instance of the appellant. We have already considered the testimony of Dr, [ENTITY] (PW. 6) and the autopsy report of [ENTITY] and it is apparently clear that cause of death of [ENTITY] was asphyxia due to strangulation. So far as recovery of belt at the instance of the appellant is concerned it may be noticed that [ENTITY] (PW. 4) stated that pieces of bangles and belt were lying at the place of occurrence itself but the Investigating Officer [ENTITY] (PW. 10) deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P- 14) of the appellant, belt used for committing the offence got recovered by him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-9) from the place shown in the disclosure statement. We have closely scanned the statements of [ENTITY] (PW. 4) and [ENTITY] (PW. 10). We find testimony of [ENTITY] quite casual. In re-examination when belt was shown to [ENTITY], he could not identify it and deposed that he was not in a position to say as if it was the same belt or not. Obviously no reliance can be placed on such testimony. Contention of the learned Senior counsel is that it is not safe to rely upon the statement of the Investigation Officer. We find no substance in this submission. The evidence of I.O. [ENTITY] (PW. 10) is convincing. [ENTITY] had no enmity with the appellant. The Investigation commenced against the appellant on the basis of the FIR lodged by his father. It is well settled that if the evidence of Investigation Officer who recovered the material object is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. In [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated that when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. From the evidence disclosed above it is apparent that the third circumstance has been well established by the prosecution.
17. The last and probably the most formidable circumstantial evidence against the appellant is his plea of alibi which was found false by the learned trial court. As earlier seen, the appellant stated that on January 28, 1997 he and [ENTITY] left the house at 7 AM and proceeded on scooter to [ENTITY] for check-up of [ENTITY] by Dr. [ENTITY] and came back to the house at about 11 AM, where they found their meals ready. He and [ENTITY] together ate the food in one plate. At that time nobody was there in the house except his old grand-mother. He then left the house around 12.30 PM leaving [ENTITY] happy. Appellant does not say that his father [ENTITY] was also in the house. The explanation offered by the appellant has been belied by the evidence of appellant's own father [ENTITY] who stated that while going to the office he had seen the appellant and [ENTITY] together in the house and cautioned them. Not only from this angle but the plea of alibi of the appellant appears to be untrue from another angle also. Initially the defence of the appellant as introduced to [ENTITY] (PW. 2) and Dr. [ENTITY] (PW. 6) was that [ENTITY] herself committed suicide because she became pregnant prior to her marriage. Subsequently the defence theory was changed and according to which two unknown boys visited [ENTITY] and remained in the house for 45 minutes. Appellant himself stated this fact and examined [ENTITY] (DW. 1) and [ENTITY] (DW. 2) to support this version. We do not find ring of truth in the testimony of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. They appear to us as liars because firstly, they say that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came back to house at 11 AM and secondly they deposed that when [ENTITY] came to the house after receiving the information of [ENTITY]'s death, they had told him that two boys visited [ENTITY]. Had they informed [ENTITY] about the visit of two boys why would he name his son as accused in the FIR? From the statement of [ENTITY] (DW. 3) it appears that about one month back the appellant had started learning wire-binding work at his shop. The appellant used to visit the shop at 9 AM and remained there till the evening but on the date of incident, the appellant came to the shop at 1.30 PM. Appellant himself admitted that he reached at the shop of [ENTITY] around 1.30 PM. For not going the shop of [ENTITY] at 9 AM the appellant gave explanation that he had gone to [ENTITY] for check-up of [ENTITY], and this explanation was belied by the evidence of [ENTITY]. Neither Dr. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] was examined by the appellant to probabilse his defence nor any documentary evidence was produced, it is inexplicable as to why the appellant, who had knowledge that [ENTITY] had pregnancy of over eight months and delivery could be expected at any moment left her alone. A husband who loves his wife would never leave her alone in such a situation.
18. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers and additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain, ([PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] (3), [PRECEDENT] (4), and [PRECEDENT] (5). In the instant case the false explanation offered by the appellant can be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain.
19. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive for the alleged crime. We have examined the material on record from this angle also. In a criminal trial failure to prove a motive does not necessarily mean that there was no motive for the crime. The circumstances of an act being apparently motiveless is not a ground from which the existence of a powerful or irresistible influence or homicidal tendency can be inferred. Motives exist unknown and innumerable which might prompt the act. Mysterious is the working 6f human mind. It is, indeed, a fact that motive underlies almost every offence, but the motives of men are often deep unfathomable and their number is ligion. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact of which evidence can be given. The circumstances proving the guilt of the accused are however not weakened at all by the fact that the motive has not been established. It often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the prosecution is able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt from other circumstantial evidence that it was the accused alone who could have committed the murder, the absence of the motive will not hamper a safe conviction.
20. It is interesting to note that though no motive was ascribed by the prosecution as to why the appellant took the unnatural step of killing his wife, materials on record indicate that the appellant was under the impression that his wife [ENTITY] became pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse committed by some other person prior to her marriage. This suspicion as appeared in the conscious portion of his psychic apparatus came in to light when the prosecution witnesses [ENTITY] (PW. 2) and Dr. [ENTITY] (PW. 6) were asked in the cross examination that [ENTITY] herself committed suicide because she became pregnant prior to her marriage. It may, therefore, be safely inferred that believing that his wife [ENTITY] was going to deliver a child, conceived through some other person, the appellant committed the offence in question in order to get rid of her and her unborn child.
21. In the ultimate analysis we find a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the appellant. The evidence collected by the prosecution is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that appellant is guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is complete and incapable of any explanation or any other hypothesis then of the guilt of the appellant. Learned trial judge in our considered view, has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant and we confirm the impugned finding.
22. For the reasons aforementioned we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.