JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This appeal by the prisoner, Gandu Santra, is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Puri-Nayagarh, convicting him u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for having intentionally caused the death of his co-villager, Madhusudan Mohapatra, on June 7, 1957, at village Baulabandha within the police station of Banpur in the district of Puri. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is this: The deceased Madhusudan Mohapatra was appointed the Managing trustee of Shri Kunja Behad Dev in the village Baulabandha by the Endowment Commissioner, Orissa. The accused and his Brother, Shrinibas Santra, since acquitted, were the hereditary Sevaks of the aforesaid deity. Previous to the appointment of the Board of Trustees the Sevaks were in possession of certain lands belonging to Shri Kunja Behari Dev; but by an order of the Endowment Commissioner they were dispossessed from the lands in November 1956. The Sevaks naturally objected to their dispossession from the khas cultivation of these lands, but the Endowment Commissioner eventually directed the Managing trustee to appoint tenants in respect of the same. Accordingly, several persons including Ramakrishna Tripathy (P.W. 4), Baishnab Tripathy (P.W. 5) and Banambar Swain (P.W. 10) were allotted different parcels of land on execution of Muchalikas (Ext. 3 series) on March 17, 1957. On account of this, it is alleged, the Sevaks bore grudge against the deceased trustee for having dispossessed them. This, the prosecution alleged, was the motive for this offence. It is about the time of the celebration of Champak Dwadashi festival of the deity, Kunja Behari Dev, that the deceased trustee was making arrangements in consultation with the Sevaks regarding the preparation of particular offerings at the festival and asked the Appellant to arrange cocoanuts worth Rs. 2/- for the same. This happened in the morning of the 7th while the deceased was cleansing his teeth on his verandah and the Appellant was returning from the temple. The Appellant offered to supply the cocoanuts from his own house. At about noon, Shrinibas came to call the deceased while the latter was taking his food to bring the cocoanuts from his house as desired by his brother, the Appellant. Soon after the deceased finished his meal, both of them went to the house of the Appellant where after the deceased was not seen anywhere in the village. At about noon, Shrinibas came to call the deceased while the latter was taking his food to bring the cocoanuts from his house as desired by his brother, the Appellant. Soon after the deceased finished his meal, both of them went to the house of the Appellant where after the deceased was not seen anywhere in the village. Since he did not return home till late in the evening, the members of his family grew anxious and began to search for him. His son, Sadhu Charan Mohapatra (P.W. 1) had been to Sunakhala for selling ready-made garments and returned in the evening when he learnt from his mother, Hadi Bewa (P.W. 2) of his father's going to the house of the Appellant and not returning till then. Thereafter, (P.W. 1) went out in search of his father and knocked at the door of the Appellant which he found bolted from inside. The prosecution case is that Appellant answered from inside his house that the deceased had left long since. He however, did not open his door. Accordingly, P.W. 1 made further unsuccessful searches in the village and eventually informed his villagers P.Ws. 4, 5, 12 and 16 who also knocked at the door of the Appellant at about two Ghadis of the night, but there was no response. They found both the back doors of the Appellant bolted from inside and naturally they suspected some foul play and some P.W. 1 with the village Chowkidar to inform the police at Banpur. The villagers and some other Chowkidars remained on guard over the house of the Appellant. P.W. 1 on his way met the Sub-Inspector of Banpur police station (P.W. 1.8) at the Balugaon Beat house early next morning and informed him about the missing of his father. A station diary entry (Ext. 1) was made by the Sub-Inspector who immediately proceeded to the spot and reached the village at 3 p.m. He found the doors of the Appellant still closed and people watching from outside. On his knocking at the door, the Appellant himself opened the front door of his house. P.W. 18 then enquired as to the whereabouts of the deceased. The Appellant thereupon pointed out the deadbody, of Madhusudan lying in his Dandaghar (front room of the house). On his knocking at the door, the Appellant himself opened the front door of his house. P.W. 18 then enquired as to the whereabouts of the deceased. The Appellant thereupon pointed out the deadbody, of Madhusudan lying in his Dandaghar (front room of the house). The Sub-Inspector found the deceased lying dead with frothy red substance coming out of his mouth and nostrils with marks of injury on his body. Immediately after inquest, he sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by the Medical Officer of Banpur Hospital (P.W. 19) on June 9, 1957. 3. P.W. 19 found four external injuries on the dead body: (1) One bruise 2" X" situated on the left side of the neck below the lower jaw. (2) One bruise r" x ?" situated on the right side of the neck away from the middle of the neck. (3) One bruise 2" x 2" situated on the back of the left wrist joint area. (4) One bruise 1?" x 1" situated on the back of the left upper arm 2" below the shoulder joint. On dissection he found the underlying soft tissues of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 showing signs of ecchymosis which were pale in colour. The mucous membrane of the trachea showed pale bluish discolouration. On dissection of the lungs dark frothy fluid came out. The underlying soft tissues below injuries Nos. 3 and 4 showed signs of ecchymosis with pale bluish discolouration. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. 4. The investigating officer seized two lathis (M. as III and IV), a rope (M.O.V), a torn piece of cloth (M.O. VI), cocoanut fire (M.O. VIII) and blood stained earth (M.O. VII) from the place where dead body was lying (vide seizure list-Ext 6). On June 9, 1957, he again seized cocoanuts (M.G. XI) from inside the room of the Appellant-vide Ext. 9. On June 14, he further seized paddy plants (M.Os. IX and X) from the deity's land in 'Gantala Chhak' (lands lying on the Suburbs of the village) and the adjoining fields of Godavaris Rath-vide Ext. 8. On June 9, 1957, he again seized cocoanuts (M.G. XI) from inside the room of the Appellant-vide Ext. 9. On June 14, he further seized paddy plants (M.Os. IX and X) from the deity's land in 'Gantala Chhak' (lands lying on the Suburbs of the village) and the adjoining fields of Godavaris Rath-vide Ext. 8. Lastly, on June 15, he searched the Bari of the Appellant and recovered from a manure pit a napkin (M.O. 1) belonging to the deceased Madhusudan wrapped in a red napkin (M.O. II) belonging to the accused buried inside the earth under seizure list, Ext. 10. The napkin contained suspected stains of blood. Thereafter the Investigating Officer seized certain documents including the Muchalikas relating to the deity's lands from the custody of P.W. 1. 5. The defence of the accused was a plea of not guilty to the charge. His defence in substance, was that the deceased attempted to dispossess him from the lands of the deity of which he was in possession having been recognised as a tenant by the Endowment Commissioner. He sowed the fields in the Gantala Chhak about eight days prior to the occurrence with the help of his servant Kela Biswal; but the deceased took Kela to task for having done the same. On the date of occurrence at about 4 p.m. the deceased was found reploughing the aforesaid fields with the help of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and certain others. The Appellant protested against this and there was exchange of hot words and slaps between him and the deceased. Thereafter the deceased ordered his men to give a good beating to the Appellant. Being afraid, the Appellant ran home, but was chased by the deceased with a 'Tada' up to his house followed, by his men behind. The Appellant entered into his house through the front door followed by the deceased who then dealt a blow with his 'Tada' on the forehead of the accused and aimed another blow which was prevented by him. Thereafter a scuffle ensued between the two during which the deceased fell down with his neck on the thresh-hold and began groaning. He also fell over the deceased by losing his balance. In the meanwhile the followers of the deceased came rushing and hence out of fear he closed the front-door and went inside. He denied to have throttled the deceased to death. He also fell over the deceased by losing his balance. In the meanwhile the followers of the deceased came rushing and hence out of fear he closed the front-door and went inside. He denied to have throttled the deceased to death. His case was that the deceased died instantaneously due to the fall. He also denied that the fact of his calling the deceased to his house through his brother for the purpose of supplying him cocoanuts or for committing the murder, as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, convicted the Appellant and sentenced him as stated earlier. 6. Mr. R.C. Ram, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, urged that the witnesses were all interested witnesses, and, as such, they should not have been believed at all. Although there were sixty houses in two rows in the village, not a single independent witness has been examined in this case. There being no eye-witness to the occurrence the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the Appellant purely on circumstantial evidence, each chain of which should have been completely established by the prosecution by some more reliable evidence. Further the prosecution having failed to explain the injuries on the person of the Appellant, the defence version should have been accepted. He urged that the prosecution witnesses had referred to the "disputed" lands and had gone back upon the statement before the police. Lastly, he submitted that the copies of the First Information Report and the Station Diary Entry (Ext. 1) not having been supplied to the Appellant before the enquiry, the trial is vitiated since it was not in accordance with the provisions of the New Amendment Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Lastly, he submitted that the copies of the First Information Report and the Station Diary Entry (Ext. 1) not having been supplied to the Appellant before the enquiry, the trial is vitiated since it was not in accordance with the provisions of the New Amendment Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The circumstantial evidence relied upon in this case are: (i) The incident on the morning of the date of occurrence regarding the offer of the Appellant for the supply of coconuts at the house of the deceased; (ii) the brother of the Appellant coming to call the deceased to their house at the instance of the Appellant at about noon time; (iii) P.W. 10 saw the decease going with Shrinibas to the house of the Appellant at noon; (iv) the groaning sound heard by four witnesses at noon, that is, at about the time of occurrence; and (v) the recovery of the dead body from the house of the Appellant and the blood stained napkins recovered from the manure pit. The blood stained napkin (M.O.I), however, was not given any importance by the learned Judge since this was recovered from a manure pit on the extreme end of the Bari of the Appellant with a wicket gate adjoining it which is accessible to any outsider. The recovery also according to the learned Judge, was several days after the date of occurrence and it throws some doubt whether it was really concealed by the Appellant or it was planted there by some body else. Hence the learned Sessions Judge rightly did not rely on M.O.I. 8. Before dealing with the various claim of the circumstantial evidence, it would he better to state the motive for the crime in a little detail. It has been successfully proved by the prosecution that the deceased after being appointed as a trustee of the deity Kunja Behari Dev, attempted to take possession of the deity's lands from the Sevaks including the Appellant with the help of the Inspector of Endowments. He actually got possession of the lands as is evident from Ext. 2, the writ of Delivery' of possession on November 26, 1956. The deity's lands consisted partly of Khas lands and partly of tenanted lands but the dispute admittedly is in respect of only the Khas lands which are claimed by the Appellant. He actually got possession of the lands as is evident from Ext. 2, the writ of Delivery' of possession on November 26, 1956. The deity's lands consisted partly of Khas lands and partly of tenanted lands but the dispute admittedly is in respect of only the Khas lands which are claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant approached the Endowment Commissioner for settling the lands of the deity on him and this was granted by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated September 4, 1956 vide Ext. A. The Assistant Commissioner in his order observed that obviously while evicting the Appellant from possession, the lands in their physical culivation should be settled on them on tenancy basis subject to the usual and formal execution of undertaking in the name of the Board of Trustees. In order to avoid bitterness between the trustees appointed u/s 27, it is better that one of the opposite parties 1 to 3 be associated in the trustee board so that there can be smooth management of the affairs of the trust. It is established in evidence that besides the Appellant and his brother, one Lokanath is a cosharer Sevak of the deity as he had obtained a transfer from the ex-Sevak Lingaraj Santra, deceased father of the Appellant. Thus, it may be seen that these Sevaks were recognised as tenants of the deity's lands which were in their Khas possession. It also appears from the evidence that the Appellant had let out a large area of deity's lands on Bhag cultivation to others keeping only a small portion of three to four acres in his Khas cultivation; the disputed land in the "Gantala Chhak" being one such. By virtue of the order of the Endowment Commissioner the lands leased out on Bhag by the Appellant and others were ordered to be taken possession of by the trustees to be settled on tenants by him. Accordingly the deceased allotted the lands to various persons taking unregistered Muchalikas, Ext. 3 series. Admittedly P.Ws. 4, 5 and 10 were some of the tenants who executed these Muchalikas. P.W. 4 and others alleged that they had not actually started cultivating the lands allotted to them under the Muchalikas as the Endowment Inspector had asked them to wait for the approval of the Endowment Commissioner. Such order was not received till 25-5-1957 vide Ext. Admittedly P.Ws. 4, 5 and 10 were some of the tenants who executed these Muchalikas. P.W. 4 and others alleged that they had not actually started cultivating the lands allotted to them under the Muchalikas as the Endowment Inspector had asked them to wait for the approval of the Endowment Commissioner. Such order was not received till 25-5-1957 vide Ext. 15/C. Thus none of them had taken possession of the Muchalika lands by the date of occurrence. There appears to be some little discrepancy between the extent of lands specified in the Muchalika and the extent of land given in Ext. 2 which however does not appear to be very material for the purposes of this case. 9. Now coming to the various chains of circumstantial evidence, the first chain is the incident that happened in the morning of the date of occurrence while the deceased was cleansing his teeth in his "Dandapinda". P.W. 3, Keli Dei, a grand daughter of the deceased, was then present with him. She is a child witness aged about 10 years. The learned Sessions Judge before recording her evidence noted that the witness is explained the implication of the oath and she understands the questions put to her to give rational answers for the same. According to her the Appellant, Gandu Pandel, came from the temple side to the place where her grand-father was cleansing his teeth. He (the Appellant) stopped at the door and enquired from her grand-father whether 'Khiri Khichdi' would be offered to the deity to which the deceased replied in the affirmative and suggested that cocoanuts worth Rs. 2/- would have to be procured for the purpose. To this the Appellant replied that he has got cocoanuts in his house which his Grand-father may come and take. After taking bath when her grand-father and herself were sitting down to take their mid-day meal, Shrinibas came there to call her grandfather who went to the house of the Appellant after finishing his meal. The grandfather did not return home thereafter and was found lying dead in the house of the Appellant next morning. Although a lengthy cross-examination of this witness was made, nothing had been suggested to attack her veracity. She appears to be a witness of truth. The only other witness to this incident is P.W. 4. Ramakrishna Tripathy. He corroborated P.W. 3 in full. Although a lengthy cross-examination of this witness was made, nothing had been suggested to attack her veracity. She appears to be a witness of truth. The only other witness to this incident is P.W. 4. Ramakrishna Tripathy. He corroborated P.W. 3 in full. The only ground on which the evidence of this witness was attacked was that he is one of the tenants who had executed a Muchalika in favour of the Board of Trustees. The witness undoubtedly admitted the fact that he had taken certain lands on executing Muchalikas in favour of the trustees. In most unambiguous terms he stated in his cross-examination that none of the tenants attempted to take possession till the date of occurrence. He was a front-door neighbour and was likely to be present at the time. Beyond the fact that he is a tenant, there is nothing which can discredit the evidence of this witness. Thus the morning incident appears to have been well proved. 10. The next chain in the circumstantial evidence is that Shrinibas, the brother of the Appellant, came at about noon to call the deceased to his house to obtain Cocoanuts. The witnesses to this incident are P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 2 Hadi Bewa is the widow of the deceased and P.W. 3, as I have stated earlier, is the grand-daughter. They are the only persons who were present in the house. P.W. 1, the son of the deceased, is a separated son and was living in a separate house. He had also gone to Sunakhala about two miles away from the village Baulabandha to sell ready-made garments. P.Ws. 2 and 3 unmistakably stated that Shrinibas came to call the deceased at the instance of his brother at about noon when the deceased was taking his midday meal. The learned Sessions Judge who had the opportunity or seeing these witnesses in the witness box and marking their demeanour had believed them. We see no reason to differ from him, particularly when their veracity had not been shaken by long cross-examination to which they were subjected. 11. The third chain in the circumstantial evidence is the fact of the deceased going at about noon to the house of the Appellant in the company of Shrinibas. We see no reason to differ from him, particularly when their veracity had not been shaken by long cross-examination to which they were subjected. 11. The third chain in the circumstantial evidence is the fact of the deceased going at about noon to the house of the Appellant in the company of Shrinibas. The only witness to this incident is P.W. 10, Banambar Swain, He deposed that he saw the deceased and Shrinibas going to the house of the Appellant at noon time on the day of the Chitra Amabashya last year while he was coming from Bada Bahi to his house. This witness also admitted that although he had executed Muchalika he has not been put in possession of the deity's lands for purposes of cultivation as they were waiting the orders of the Endowment Commissioner. True, his evidence is not corroborated by any other witness, but it is not possible to expect too many people on the road at about noon in the month of June. 12. Next chain is the hearing of the groaning sound at about the time of occurrence by P.Ws. 8, 9, 11 and 15. P.W. 8, Sun a Bewa, is the next door neighbour of the Appellant. According to her on the date of occurrence while she was having a midday nap, she heard a groaning sound and was roused from her sleep. She got up and looked around but could not make out any thing. Thereafter she went to her field and returned in the evening. P.W. 9 aged 12 years deposed that on the day preceding the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the house of the Appellant he heard a groaning sound at midday while playing with his play mates Gangi, Ganga and Punia in the "Akhara Ghar", According to him, on hearing the noise they all came out but they could not find any thing. P.W. 11 Gangadhar Behera is a dancing boy of the village theatre party. According to him, on the date of occurrence at about noon while he was taking his nap in the 'Akhara Ghar' in the company of Gangi, Halu and Puma, he heard a groaning sound and then opening the door, they all looked around but could not find anything. According to him, on the date of occurrence at about noon while he was taking his nap in the 'Akhara Ghar' in the company of Gangi, Halu and Puma, he heard a groaning sound and then opening the door, they all looked around but could not find anything. The house of the Appellant is situated just in front of this "Akhara Ghar", The only other witness that remains is P.W. 15, Agani Das. According to him at about one or two in the afternoon of the date of occurrence, while he was proceeding to a shop in Dasagharia Sahi for purchasing Gundi (tobacco powder), he had to pass by the side of the house of the Appellant and while he was passing urine under a plam tree near his bari, he heard a groaning sound coming from the direction of the house of the Appellant. He stated that he could not make out anything from that sound, but went on his way, the only suggestion that is made against this witness is that he is one of the Muchalika tenants. But admittedly he had not taken possession of the deity's lands. He stands corroborated by P.Ws. 8, 9, and 11 who are independent witnesses. Thus, P.Ws 8 9, 11 and 15 proved beyond all reasonable doubt that some groaning sound was coming from the house of the Appellant or from that side at about the time of occurrence. The recovery of the dead body from the house of the Appellant has been admitted. 13. The story put forward by the defence cannot be accepted. His Lordship discusses the evidence.... Thus, it is difficult to believe that there was any such incident on June 7, on the field of the accused-the deceased attempting to dispossess him and subsequently chasing him to his house. 14. Secondly, according to the evidence of the Medical Officer P.W. 19, there were partially digested rice, green gram and other vegetables present in the stomach content. According to him, it takes three hours for the food to be digested. But in the present case, the deceased might have taken his last meal within one hour before his death. Even after death, the presence of acids in the stomach, which remains for a short time, act on the food and result in partial digestion until the acids are neutralised. But in the present case, the deceased might have taken his last meal within one hour before his death. Even after death, the presence of acids in the stomach, which remains for a short time, act on the food and result in partial digestion until the acids are neutralised. This evidence of the medical officer fits in with the time of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution, Hence the defence version cannot be held to be the true version of the occurrence. 15. The Appellant was examined by P.W. 6, the Medical Officer in charge of Khurda Government Hospital, on June 10, 1957. He found two injuries on his person which were simple in nature. According to him, injury No. 1 could have been caused by the head striking against any hard substance like a wall. It could also be self-inflicted by a right handed man (vide Ext. 4). Thus the injury on the person of the Appellant has been well explained by the prosecution. 16. It is true that some of the prosecution witnesses are Muchalika tenants of the deity's lands, but it is clear from their evidence that they had not taken possession of the lands until the date of occurrence. Their evidence cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that they had just executed Muchalikas in favour of the trustees. P.Ws. 8, 9, and 11, however, are not concerned with the deity's lands and are disinterested witnesses. Besides P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the widow and grand-father of the deceased. From the deposition of these prosecution witnesses they appear to have spoken the truth. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence to certain extent. The doctor, P.W. 19, was definitely of opinion that the strangulation in this case appeared to be by throttling with the hand. 17. The law in this respect appears to have been well settled. The Supreme Court relying on their previous decision in Hanumant v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 S.C. 344 laid down in the case of Deonandan Mishra Vs. 17. The law in this respect appears to have been well settled. The Supreme Court relying on their previous decision in Hanumant v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 S.C. 344 laid down in the case of Deonandan Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, that where there is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence the standard of proof required to convict the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence, not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation which, if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. In the present case as I have stated earlier all the links in the circumstantial evidence have been completely and satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. Thus, there does not appear to be any manner of doubt that the Appellant had caused the death of the deceased by strangulation. 18. Lastly, rather an interesting argument was advanced by Mr. Ram. He urged that the officer-in-charge of the investigation did not furnish the Appellant with free copies of the first information report and of the station dairy entry, Ext. 1. Accordingly, the whole proceeding has been vitiated. For the purpose of his argument, he relied upon Section 173(4) and Section 207-A (3) of the amended Code of Criminal Procedure. Ram. He urged that the officer-in-charge of the investigation did not furnish the Appellant with free copies of the first information report and of the station dairy entry, Ext. 1. Accordingly, the whole proceeding has been vitiated. For the purpose of his argument, he relied upon Section 173(4) and Section 207-A (3) of the amended Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 173(4) provides that after forwarding a report under this section, the officer-in-charge of the police-station shall before the commencement of the inquiry or trial, furnish or cause to, be furnished to the accused free of cost, a copy of the report forwarded under Sub-section (1) and of the first information report recorded u/s 154 and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely, including the statements and confessions, if any, recorded u/s 164 and the statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. 19. Section 207-A appears in Chapter XVIII dealing with inquiry into cases triable by the Court of Sessions or High Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 207-A provides that at the commencement of the enquiry the Magistrate shall when the accused appears or is brought before him satisfy himself that the documents referred to in Section 173 have been furnished to the accused and if he finds that the accused has not been furnished with such documents or any of them, he shall cause the same to be so furnished. In this connection, I may refer to Section 251-A appearing in Chapter XXI regarding trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Sub-section (1) of Section 251-A makes a similar provision regarding the supply of documents by the Police Officer. Both Section 207-A and Section 251-A are subject to Section 173. It is evident from both these sections that if the enquiring Magistrate in a case triable by the Sessions Court or the High Court or the Magistrate in the trial of warrant cases finds that the accused has not been furnished with the aforesaid documents or any of them, he shall cause the same to be so furnished. Hence the documents in question by virtue of Sections 207-A and 251-A could be supplied during the enquiry or the trial and not necessarily before the enquiry or trial. Hence the documents in question by virtue of Sections 207-A and 251-A could be supplied during the enquiry or the trial and not necessarily before the enquiry or trial. From the records in the present case, it appears that first of all an objection was taken to the statements made by P.W. 1 on June 7, 1957, before the Sub-Inspector of Police at Balungaon (Ext. 1) on the ground that copies of that document were not supplied to the accused before the enquiry. But later on it appears from the list of documents admitted in evidence that this document was admitted without any objection. The enquiring Magistrate it appears, by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 207-A, when found that the accused had not been furnished with such documents, probably caused the same to be supplied to the accused and then the document was marked "without objection". Hence there appears to be no substance in this argument of Mr. Ram. As regards the objection to the first information report it is concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Gani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 S.C. 344 wherein it was held that though the first information report is not as full as it could b, it cannot be ignored altogether. It can be used to corroborate the statements of the eye-witnesses. In this case the First Information report was drawn up by the Police based on the evidence of the witnesses at the spot when the police officer proceeded with the investigation on receipt of the missing report, Ext. 1. 20. We had given our anxious consideration to the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15 and we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and thereby the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Barman, J. 21. I agree. 22. Appeal dismissed Final Result : Dismissed