JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals by accused Satya Narain (one through Jail and the other represented) are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated April 21, 1977 convicting the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000)- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased Ramesh Chandraboth Brahmins by caste and residents of Nim Ka Thane (district Sikar) were the students of B.Ed. in Vidhya Bhawan Teachers Training College, Udaipur in the academic session 1974-75 and were living in Jubilee hostel situate in the College compound.The deceased was living in room No. 8 with his partner Subhkaran (PW 6) while the accused was living in room No. 44 with his partner Manohar Lal (PW 11). Both these rooms are situate in the ground floor of the double storeyed building of the hostel. PW 2 Mst. Kali the washer woman was living in a small loom near room number 45 a shown in site plan Ex. P 4. It was Sunday on December 22, 1974. In the noon on December 21, 1974, PW 11 Manohar Lal went in the city to his brother and was, thus, not present on December 22, 1974 in the hostel. At about 8.00 P.M. on December 22, 1974, the students residing in the hostel marked their attendance in the Attendance Register and retired to their respective rooms. The deceased Ramesh Chandra and his room partner Subhkaran (PW 6) came to their room No. 8 and were talking with each other. A few minutes later, the accused went to this room No. 8 and took Ramesh Chandra with him to his room No. 44 to finalise their programme to go to their home-town Nim Ka Thana. 10-15 minutes later, PW 2 Mst. Kali heard somebody groaning 'Hai re Hare' in room No. 44. She raised cries and some students came mit. PW 5 Shiv Prakash, PW 19 Vimal Chand, PW 20 Bherulal and PW 24 Madanpal Singh noticed the accused jumping in the back side of the hostel from the window of room No. 44. The accused after jumping from the window started running desperately. Some of the aforesaid students ran after him. She raised cries and some students came mit. PW 5 Shiv Prakash, PW 19 Vimal Chand, PW 20 Bherulal and PW 24 Madanpal Singh noticed the accused jumping in the back side of the hostel from the window of room No. 44. The accused after jumping from the window started running desperately. Some of the aforesaid students ran after him. PW 5 Shiv Prakash was ahead of all. The students running after the accused saw his hands stained with blood. Shiv Prakash (PW 5) cried aloud asking the accused to stop and to let them know as to what had taken place. But the accused did not stop. The students could not catch the accused and they returned to the hostel. The Police Constables PW 9 Chainsingh and PW 17 Mohan Singh, who were on duty at Police Out Post Fatehpure situate not far from the Teachers Training College, heard the noise that some student had stabbed the other student in the hostel. He informed the concerned Police Station, Bhopalpura on telephone. These two constables came out of the Police Out Post and saw the accused running desperately towards Kharol Colony. They ran after him and after covering some distance caught hold of him. They brought him at the Police Out Post where the accused told them that he was a student in the Teachers Training College. The clothes he was wearing were drenched with blood and blood was oozing out from the palm of his hand. The police constables asked him as to how blood was there on his clothes and palm and thereupon the accused told them that he had stabbed his fellow student Ramesh Chandra. These two police constables immediately took the accused with them and left to go to Police Station, Bhopalpura. 3. PW 5 Shiv Prakash and other students, who ran after the accused but could not catch him, returned to the hostel. Many students had collected there. They found room No. 44 bolted from inside. The door was broken-open. PW 6 Subhkaran and other students found the deceased Ramesh Chandra lying in a pool of blood and blood oozing out from his wounds. There were multiple injuries on his body. The window in the back side of the room was found open. There were no iron-bars in the window. It has only wooden shutters. The door was broken-open. PW 6 Subhkaran and other students found the deceased Ramesh Chandra lying in a pool of blood and blood oozing out from his wounds. There were multiple injuries on his body. The window in the back side of the room was found open. There were no iron-bars in the window. It has only wooden shutters. The students approached Shri A. B. Pathak (PW 5), a lecturer who as living in a staff quarter of the College. They informed him of the incident. Shri Pathak sent some students to bring the College Station Wagon and thereafter contacted the Principal Shri Kaidarnath (PW 3). The Principal was informed of the incident. He advised to immediately take the injured Ramesh Chandra to hospital in the Station Wagon. The students and Shri Pathak (PW 4) placed Ramesh Chandra in the Station Wagon and took him to General Hospital, Udaipur where he was declared dead by the doctor on duty. The Principal Kaidarnath (PW 3) also went to hospital and learnt there that Ramesh Chandra was no more alive. He re-turned to the College. He gathered the facts from the students as to how Ramesh Chandra was done-to death. He also learnt from them that the accused was seen running desperately and the students ran after him but could not catch him. 4. When the telephone message was received at Police Station, Bhopalpura from Police Out Post, Fatehpura, that some student has been stabbed by the other student, the Station House Officer Sabir Mohammed (PW 25) went to the Teachers Training College. He reached there at about 10.00 P.M. The principal Kaidar Nath (PW 3) presented written report Ex. P. 7 to him. A case was registered thereon and the investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammed reached the hospital and found the dead-body of Ramesh Chandra lying in the Emergency Out Door Ward. He prepared the inquest report of his dead-body. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased i.e. Coat, bushirt, Baniyan, Pajama and underwear were seized and sealed. Thereafter he reached the Police Station, Bhopal pura and found the accused being detained there where he was taken by the police constables Chainsingh (PW 9) and Mohan Singh (PW 17). The investigating Officer arrested the accused at about 1.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 vide arrest memo Ex. P 9. Thereafter he reached the Police Station, Bhopal pura and found the accused being detained there where he was taken by the police constables Chainsingh (PW 9) and Mohan Singh (PW 17). The investigating Officer arrested the accused at about 1.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 vide arrest memo Ex. P 9. The accused was then wearing bushirt (Article 6) and Pajama (Art. 7) stained with blood. They were later on seized and sealed at about 4.00 A.M. At about 3.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974, the accused whilst under police custody furnished information recorded in Ex. P 5 by the Investigating Officer before PW 1 Virendra Singh (the Warden of the Hostel) and Narendra Kumar that he had thrown the knife in the bushes standing on the back side of room No. 44 and that he would get it recovered. In consequence of the said information, the accused took the Investigating Officer and the aforesaid Motbirs to the back side of the hostel and took out knife (Article II) lying in a bush. The knife was found stained with blood. It was seized and sealed. 5. The Investigating Officer thereafter inspected room No. 44 and prepared the site inspection note and the site plan. Many articles lying in the room were found stained with blood. They were seized and sealed. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 9.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 by PW 7 Dr. Khatik, the then Medical Jurist, General Hospital. Udaipur. The doctor notices the following injuries on the victim's dead body: EXTERNAL 1. Incised wound with blood-stained clean cut margin ⅞" x 1/4" bone deep spindle shape placed over left side of forehead extending from hair line to down-wards vertically in its middle. 2. Incised wound with deeply blood stained clean cut margin over left side of ramus of mendibular region of face and x 1/2" infront of ear lobule measures 1" x 1/4" bone deep. 3. An incised wound ⅞" x 1/4" bone deep just above injury No. 2. 4. An incised wound along the frong portion pinna attachment to face skin on left side 1/2" x ⅛" x muscle deep. 5. Vertical incised wound placed over left temporal region of face 11/2" lateral to outer conthus of eye ⅝" x ⅛" x bone deep. 6. An incised wound ⅞" x 1/4" bone deep just above injury No. 2. 4. An incised wound along the frong portion pinna attachment to face skin on left side 1/2" x ⅛" x muscle deep. 5. Vertical incised wound placed over left temporal region of face 11/2" lateral to outer conthus of eye ⅝" x ⅛" x bone deep. 6. Small abrassion with soft and cab 1/2" x ⅛" over left upper malar region in its middle simple and blunt. 7. Incised wound ⅜" x ⅛" x bone deep just half inch above the right pinna attached to face skin over temporal region. 8. Contused abrasion 3/4" x 4" over left side of base of neck at its upper portion simple blunt. 9. Contused abrasion 1" x 1/4" just ⅛" lateral to injury No. 8. 10. An irregular abrasion 1" x 1/2" along the upper and outer border of left scapular region simple blunt. 11. Transverse incised wound over outer aspect of back or left lower ⅓rd of fore-arm ⅜" x ⅛" x subcutaneous deep. 12. An incised wound with clear cut margin 11/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep placed over back of upper ⅓rd of right forearm. 13. Small abrasion 1/4" x ⅛" and just half inch above to injury No. 12. 14. An incised wound with avulsion of tissue flap over terminal phalynx of palmer aspect of right index finger sized 1"x ⅜" bone deep. 15. Lacerated wound obliquely placed over proximal phalynx or aspect of right middle finger 1" x 1-1/2 into bone deep simple blunt. 16. Spindal shaped incised wound 3" x 1/4" x sub cutaneous deep over internal aspect of lower ⅓ of right leg anterio posterior direction. 17. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/16" over outer aspect of middle ⅓ of left leg of simple blunt. 18. An incised wound 1" x 1/4" sub cutaneous deep over left side of perineal region just 2" below the inferior secrotum attachment to skin. 19. A transverse incised wound over left pareito occipital region of scalp 1" and 3/4" into ⅛" into pericranium deep, by hand lens hair bulbs arc clearly cut and margins are clean cut. 20. An incised wound 3/4" x ⅛" x bone deep over posterior portion of parietal posterior portion of parietal prominence of scalp left side. 21. Punctured wound ⅛" x 1/16" x bone deep and 1" below the injury No. 20, simple pointed. 20. An incised wound 3/4" x ⅛" x bone deep over posterior portion of parietal posterior portion of parietal prominence of scalp left side. 21. Punctured wound ⅛" x 1/16" x bone deep and 1" below the injury No. 20, simple pointed. 22. A punctured wound ⅛" x 1/16" x bone deep and 1/2" outer to injury No. 20 and punctured wound same dimension 1/2" below and another is 1/2" lateral to injury No. 22. 23. An incised wound antero posteriorly over left side parietal region of scalp in its middle 1" left to mid line measures 1" x ⅛" x bone deep (antero posterior direction). 24. An incised wound obliquely placed over back of para vertebral region at the level of T. 3 and £ 4 measured 1" x 1/4" x 3/4" directing laterally. 25. Small incised wound ⅝" x ⅛" sub cutaneous deep in just 1/4" lateral to injury No. 24. 26. Stab wound 1" x 1/2" by thoracic cavity deep just at middle border of last scapular region in its middle sharp and pointed weapon 27. Punctured wound ⅞" x 1/2" x 1⅛" Just ⅝" middle to injury No. 26 caused by pointed sharp weapon. 28. An incised wound 3/4" x 1/2" x ⅓ over IX I.C.S. just 21/2" below the inferior angle of Lt. scapular and in its vertical line. 29. An incised wound 11/2" x 1/4" x 3/4" placed over back of right lower lumber region just 1" right to 4 level of mid line of vertebral region. 30. An incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" sub cutaneous deep just 1/2" lateral to injury No. 29. INTERNAL 1. Depressed fracture of upper portion of middle of right temporal bone about 3/4" diameter area. 2. Chip fracture from inner border of left scapula in its middle about 3/4" long with cutting of muscles overlying it and extravasation of blood in said area. 3. Depressed fracture of right posterior portion posterior iliac crest about 1" x 1/2" area just 1" below the posterior iliac crest. 4. Fracture of right side of body of 2nd theracic vertebra. 5. Cut fracture of vertebral and of IV and V ribs left side with incised wound in IV I.C.S. posteriorly at its vertebral end. 6. 3. Depressed fracture of right posterior portion posterior iliac crest about 1" x 1/2" area just 1" below the posterior iliac crest. 4. Fracture of right side of body of 2nd theracic vertebra. 5. Cut fracture of vertebral and of IV and V ribs left side with incised wound in IV I.C.S. posteriorly at its vertebral end. 6. Stab wound 11/2" x 3/4" x through and through placed in IV I.C.S. with chip fracture of lower border of posterior side of 3 rib caused by pointed sharp weapon. 7. Punctured wound in VI I.C.S. at left para vertebral region sharp and pointed weapon. 8. Extra vacation of blood in retro pharyngeal tissue upper 1,13 left side. 6. In the opinion of Dr. Khatik, the mode of death was syncope and coma owing to introcerabral hemorrhage and external injuries. The injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The post mortem examination report issued by him is Ex. p 8. 7. Various articles recovered and seized during the investigation were sent for chemical examination. The clothes of the accused and the knife were found stained with human blood. When the accused was arrested, some injuries were found on his person. His injuries were medically examined on December 23, 1974. His injury report is Ex. P 14. After when the investigation was over, police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Judge framed a charge under section 302, IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness. In his statement under section 313 Cr. PC the accused stated that the murder was committed not by him but by his room partner Manohar Lal (PW 11). He came with a muffled face and brutely stabbed the deceased victim Ramesh Chandra. He tried to help Ramesh Chandra but he too was not spared by Manohar Lal. In his attempt to render help to Ramesh Chandra, he also sustained some injuries on his palm. He came with a muffled face and brutely stabbed the deceased victim Ramesh Chandra. He tried to help Ramesh Chandra but he too was not spared by Manohar Lal. In his attempt to render help to Ramesh Chandra, he also sustained some injuries on his palm. He thus,received injuries on his palm and his clothes got drenched with blood of his wounds. He got highly frightened and jumped in the back side of the window of the room. He was running towards the Police Out Post to lodge the report. He went to the Police Out Post and narrated the incident to the Constable on duty. The police took no notice of what he stated and wrongly implicated him for he murder of Ramesh Chandra. The police shielded the real culprit Manohar Lal (PW 11). On the malice conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution story substantially true and the charge duly proved against the accused The defence put out forward by the accused was found pulpably false and unfounded. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against his conviction, the accused has taken these appeals. 8. Before proceeding further, we may point out that Shri K.C. Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not challenge the cause of death of Ramesh Chandra.We have also carefully gone through the testemony of Dr. Khatik (PW 7) and find no reasons to discard his opinion about the cause of death of Ramesh Chandra. Ramesh Chandra had sustained as many as 30 external injuries resulting in eight internal injuries. Some of the injuries were on vital parts. The injuries were found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Thus, the death of Ramesh Chandra was not natural but homicidal. 9. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case rests entirely on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, may for ease and convenience be categorised as under: 1. The accused took deceased-victim Ramesh Chandra to his room No. 44 from room No. 8 just a few minutes of the occurrence. 2. In room No. 44, the accused and the deceased Ramesh Chandra were only persons when the deceased was done to death. The accused took deceased-victim Ramesh Chandra to his room No. 44 from room No. 8 just a few minutes of the occurrence. 2. In room No. 44, the accused and the deceased Ramesh Chandra were only persons when the deceased was done to death. The accused's room partner Manohar Lal (PW II) was not in the hostel since the noon of 21-12-74. 3. The accused was seen jumping from the window of the room in the back side of hostel. He was running desperately repeated calls being made asking him to stop, he did not stop and tried to escape. 4. While running, the accused was caught by two police constables Chain Singh (PW 9) and Mohan Singh (PW 17). The clothes of the accused were then founded stained with blood and he had some minor injuries on his palm and thumb. 5. Knife article 11 was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by the accused whilst under police custody. 6. The clothes of accused and the knife Article 11 were found stained with human blood on chemical examination. 10. We have heard Mr. Gaur and the learned Public Prosecutor at length. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 11. In assailing the conviction Mr. Gaur vehemently contended that the accused was convicted almost on nil evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the Court below in convicting the accused do not positively point out the guilt. The circumstances in the first place do not stand proved and even if taken as proved, they were wholly insufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused. There were material contradictions about the recovery of blood stained knife (Article II). According to some witnesses it was recovered at about 2.00 A.M. on December 23. 1974 while the recovery memo shows that it was recovered at about 4.00 A.M. The accused has given explanation as to how he sustained minor injuries on his thumb and palm and how his clothes were got drenched with blood. His explanation was rational and logical which should have been accepted by the Court below. Distorted inference were drawn from the innocent circumstances of convict the accused. It was also argued by Mr. Gaur that there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of Ramesh Chandra. Both of them belong to the same caste and the same village. Distorted inference were drawn from the innocent circumstances of convict the accused. It was also argued by Mr. Gaur that there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of Ramesh Chandra. Both of them belong to the same caste and the same village. Since the prosecution has failed to allege any motive, the evidence must be formidable to prove the guilt of the accused. But the evidence was nil and yet the accused was convicted. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and submitted that there was evidence to conclusively show that the accused and the accused alone was the pre-pertator of the murder of Ramesh Chandra. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. It would be proper to examine each set of circumstantial evidence in order to see whether the conclusions arrived at by the Court below are correct or not. 12. There is no dispute that the deceased and the accused were residents of the same town Nim ka Thana and were students of B. Ed. in Vidha Bhawan Teachers Training College, Udaipur. They were living in Jubilee Hotel. The deceased was living in room No. 8 with his partner PW 6 Subhkaran while the accused was living in room No. 44 with his partner PW II Manohar Lal. Both these rooms are situate in ground floor. 13. The first set of evidence against the accused is that the deceased and his room partner Subhkaran (PW6) were sitting in room No.8 after marking their presence in the Attendance Register of the hostel. It was 8.00P.M. or so by then. PW 6 Subhkaran deposed that while he and the deceased were talking in their room No. 8, the accused came there. He (accused) had some talks with the deceased and he took him (deceased) to room No. 44. After some time he heard some noise. He went out and found nearly 20, 30 students out side room No. 44. The room was bolted inside. Some of the students broke open the door of room No 44. He saw the deceased Ramesh Chandra was lying in a pool of blood. There were multiple wounds on his body and the clothes he was wearing were drenched with blood. There was blood all around on the floor of the room. The room was bolted inside. Some of the students broke open the door of room No 44. He saw the deceased Ramesh Chandra was lying in a pool of blood. There were multiple wounds on his body and the clothes he was wearing were drenched with blood. There was blood all around on the floor of the room. The window of the room in the back side was found open. It had no iron bars. The accused was not found there in the room. The deceased was taken in the College Station wagon to the hospital. He also accompanied him. At the hospital, Ramesh Chandra was declared dead by the doctor on duty. He was cross-examined at length but his testimony could not be successfully challenged. The accused himself, in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. (question No. 25) admitted that he went to the victim's room and brought him to his room No. 44. It, therefore, stands established that the accused went to the room of the deceased at about 8.00 P.M. on December 22, 1974 and took him to his room No.44. 14. The second set of evidence speaking volumes against the accused is that at the time of the occurrence he and the deceased Ramesh Chandra were she only persons in room No. 44. The defence taken by the accused is that his room partner Manohar Lal (PW1 I) had come to room No. 44 with a mask on his face. It was Manohar Lal (PWI I) who had made an assault on Ramesh Chandra and struck numerous blows with a knife to him. PW 1 I Manohar Lal was examined by the prosecution to show that he had gone to his brother in the city of Udaipur much earlier in the noon of December 21,1974, and returned only at about 10.00 A.M. on December 23, 1974. PW 11 Manohar Lal stated that he was also a student of B.Ed. in the said Teachers Training College. He was living in room No.44 The accused was his other partner. At about 12.00 in the noon on December 21, 1974 he went in the city to his brother Ganesh Lal and returned at about 10.00 A.M. on December 23, 1974. It may be noted that it was Sunday on December 22, 1974. the day on which the occurrence took place. At about 12.00 in the noon on December 21, 1974 he went in the city to his brother Ganesh Lal and returned at about 10.00 A.M. on December 23, 1974. It may be noted that it was Sunday on December 22, 1974. the day on which the occurrence took place. PW 11 Manohar Lal was cross-examined at length and attempts were made to show that he was not a witness of truth. The Attendance Register of the hostellers is maintained at the hostel. The register was got produced. It is Ex. D. 1 It was contended on behalf of the accused that the initials of the presence of this witness are there in the attendance register Ex.D 1. The witness was cross-examined with reference to his alleged initials in Ex.D1 purported to have been made on December 22, 1974. The witness categorically denied his initials in the attendance register against the date December 22, 1974. In his cross-examination nothing could be elicited from him to show that ne was suppressing the truth or that the alleged initials in attendance register Ex. I were made by him. It is in the knowledge of every body that in hostels that attendance is marked by proxy by the friends of the absent hosteller. It is a notorious feature in the knowledge of everybody that attendance at times is marked by proxies. Since the elder brother of PW II Manoher Lal was living in the city of Udaipur his submission that he had gone to see his brother and lived with him on that day appears quite natural. There is nothing impobable in it which may make his testimony unworthy of belief or credence. The prosecution has examined a number of hostellers viz. PW5 shiv Prakash, PW 19 Vimal Chand, PW 20 Bherulal, PW 24 Madanpalsingh and PW 6 Subhkaran and others, who had collected just immediately after the occurrence. Some of them had seen the accused jumping behind the room from the back window. None of them admitted that Manohar Lal (PW 11) was there in the hostel on December 22, 1974 or at the time of occurrence. All these witnesses are independent persons having no axe to grind against the accused. Some of them had seen the accused jumping behind the room from the back window. None of them admitted that Manohar Lal (PW 11) was there in the hostel on December 22, 1974 or at the time of occurrence. All these witnesses are independent persons having no axe to grind against the accused. Even the accused's defence witness DW I Narain Lal, who was also a student in the Teachers Training College did not state that PW II Manohar Lal was there in the hostel at any time on December 22, 1974. 15. Mr. Gaur invited our attention to the testimony of DW 1 Narain Lal who stated that the initials alleged to have been made on December 22, 1974 in the attendance register are that of the Manohar Lal (PW 11). The learned Sessions Judge put no reliance on the testimony of this witness and rightly so in our opinion. Such type of evidence can be procured and manufactured at any time. The witnesses did not state that the disputed initials in the attendance register Lx D 1 were made by PW 11 Manohar Lal in his presence. We shall discuss at the appropriate stage as to how the allegation of the accused that the murder was committed by PW 11 Manohar Lal is false and fantastic. For the present, suffice it to say that the prosecution has successfully established that the accused and the deceased were only persons in room No. 44 in the night when the occurrence took place. The accused's partner Manohar Lal (PW 11) was not there in that room or even in the hostel at any time on December 22, 1974. He had left the hostel in the noon of December 21, 1974 and returned only at about 10.00 A.M. on December 23, 1974. This circumstance furnishes a very formidable evidence against the appellant. 16. The third set of evidence against the accused is that just after the occurrence he was seen jumping in the behind of room No. 44 from the back window. He ran desperately in the cold night and despite respected calls by PW 5 Shiv Prakash and others, did not stop. He thus turned to escape. The witnesses speaking on the point are PW 2 Mst. Kali, PW 5 Shiv Prakash, PW 19 Vimal Chand, PW 20 Bherulal and PW 24 Madanpal singh. 17. PW 2 Mst. He ran desperately in the cold night and despite respected calls by PW 5 Shiv Prakash and others, did not stop. He thus turned to escape. The witnesses speaking on the point are PW 2 Mst. Kali, PW 5 Shiv Prakash, PW 19 Vimal Chand, PW 20 Bherulal and PW 24 Madanpal singh. 17. PW 2 Mst. Kali is the washer woman of the hostel. The site plan Ex P 4 shows that her room is situate adjacent to room No. 45 which is adjacent to room No. 44. The distance between her room and room No. 44 is only of some feet. She deposed that at about 8.00 P.M. on the day of occurrence she heard same body groaning "Hai re Hai re" in room No. 44. She raised cries and many students collected out side room No. 44. This room was bolted inside. She asked some students to go in the back side of room No. 44. On her saying so, some students went in the back side of the room. The door of the room was broken open. A student was found lying dead in this room. That student was immediately taken to the hospital. The learned trial Judge accepted her testimony as true and we find no good reason to differ with him. There is nothing in her cross-examination which may render her testimony unworthy of belief. We may point that since the occurrence took place in room No. 44, the deceased must have groaned when he was stabbed. This groaning must have been naturally heard by this witness Mst. Kali (PW 2). It would be proper to point out here that the students living in room No. 43 and room No. 45 were not present at the time of incident. Both these rooms were found locked out-side. The occupants had gone in the city. 18. PW 5 Shiv Prakash, PW 19 Vimal Chand, PW 20 Bherulal and PW 54 Madanpal singh are the students who were living in the same hostel and who had seen the accused jumping down from the back window of room No. 44 and running away. They ran after him but could not catch him. PW 5 Shiv Prakash was living in room No. 32 of the hostel He deposed that about 8.00 P.M. on the day of occurence he heard Mst. Kali (PW 2) raising cries. They ran after him but could not catch him. PW 5 Shiv Prakash was living in room No. 32 of the hostel He deposed that about 8.00 P.M. on the day of occurence he heard Mst. Kali (PW 2) raising cries. He went out of his room. Mst. Kali asked him to go in the back side of room No. 44. He saw the accused um ping down from window of room No. 44. The accused took to heels, witness stated that he ran after the accused crying loudly and asking the accused to stop and let them know as to what had taken place with him. Blood was oozing out from the hands of the accused. The accused did not stop nor spoke any word. He continued to run desperately. The witness stated that he was bare-foot and could not run for long. Thorns pircked in his feet. He perforce returned to the hostel. When he returned to the hostel he found that Ramesh Chandra was lying killed in room No. 44. There were multiple stab wounds on his person. PW 19 Vimal Chand stated the same facts. He deposed that he was sitting in his room No. 59 at about 8.00 P-M. on the day of occurrence. All of a sudden he heard the cries of Mst. Kali (PW 2). He came out of his room. Mst. Kali asked him to go in the back side. When he went in the back side of the hostel, he found PW 5 Shiv Prakash miming behind another boy. Shiv Prakash (PW 5) was crying loudly "Satya Narain ROCKO, QUION BHAG RAHE HO". The witness stated that he also followed Shiv Prakash and ran after the running student. There was blood on the hands of that student who was running desperately. The witnesses stated that since that student was running desperately, he could not be caught. He returned from Lodha Niwas. When he returned to the hostel, he found Ramesh Chandra lying killed in room No.44. The same facts were deposed by PW 20 Bherulal. He was living in room No. 54 of the hostel. He stated that at about 8.00 P.M. on the day of occurrence he was sitting in room No. 53 and was talking with Madanial and Narain Lat. All of a sudden they heard the cries. The same facts were deposed by PW 20 Bherulal. He was living in room No. 54 of the hostel. He stated that at about 8.00 P.M. on the day of occurrence he was sitting in room No. 53 and was talking with Madanial and Narain Lat. All of a sudden they heard the cries. The came down and saw somebody desperately running in the back side of the hostel. Vimal Chand (PW 19) and Shiv Prakash (PW 5) were running after the accused Satya Narain. He also followed them but went only up to the boundary of the hostel building and returned back. He found the back window of room No. 44 open. Room No. 44 was bolted inside. The door was broken open and Ramesh Chandra was found with multiple stab wound on his body and blood oozing out from them. The Warden was informed and Ramesh Chandra was taken to hospital. PW 24 Madanpal Singh stated that at about 8.00 P.M on December 22, 1974 he was sitting in room No. 53 situate in the first floor of the hostel building with him friends. While they were talking, a noise was heard. He looked down from the window of room No, 53 and saw the accused Satya Narain running desperately. PW 5 Shiv Prakash was also running behind him. He came down. Mst. Kali (PW 2) was raising the cries that somebody had killed the other. The witness stated that when he saw the accused running away, his hands were stained with blood. Many students collected out side room No. 44 and its door was broken open. The deceased Ramesh Chandra was lying in a pool of blood. There were multiple stab wounds on his body. The Principal and the Warden were contacted. Ramesh Chandra was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. 19. All these four witnesses were cross examined but again nothing could be taken out from them which may render their testimony suspicious or unworthy of credence. There are all independent persons have no grudge against the accused and no soft corner for the deceased. We are unable to imagine that they would falsely depose against the accused for no apparent reasons. 20. There are all independent persons have no grudge against the accused and no soft corner for the deceased. We are unable to imagine that they would falsely depose against the accused for no apparent reasons. 20. The explanation furnished by the accused is that since the murder was committed by PW 11 Manohar Lal, he jumped from the back window and started running to go to the Police Out Post. While running, he was crying 'Maar Dala Maar Dala'. The explanation furnished by the accused is totally false and after thought. None of the above witnesses were cross examined in the light of the explanation the accused put forth in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. As we will see at the appropriate stage, had the murder been committed by Manohar Lal (PW 11), the accused would not have run desperately in a bid to escape. He was expected to stop as he was asked to stop by Shiv Prakash (PW 5) and to explain as to what had taken place. The explanation of accused further stands falsified by the direct testimony of police constable PW 9 Chain Singh. 21. PW 9 Chain Singh was on duty at police Out Post, Fatehpura. He deposed that he heard the noise that some student bad stabbed the other student in the hostel. He conveyed this information on telephone to the concerned Police Station. Bhopalpura, having jurisdiction over the matter. The witness further stated that he along with other police constables came out of the Police Out Post and found one man running desperately towards Kharol Colony. That man was coming from the college side. The witness stated that he and the other police constables ran after him for some distance and caught him. That man was the accused Satya Narain. He was brought at the Police Out Post. The accused disclosed his identity before them and told that he was a student in the Teachers Training College. Blood was oozing out from the palm and thumb of the accused and his clothes were stained with blood. The accused told them that he had stabbed his fellow student Ramesh Chandra. He (witness) and the other police constables immediately left the Out Post and took the accused to Police Station, Bhopalpura. The witness was cross examined. He denied the suggestion that the accused voluntarily came to the Police Out Post. The accused told them that he had stabbed his fellow student Ramesh Chandra. He (witness) and the other police constables immediately left the Out Post and took the accused to Police Station, Bhopalpura. The witness was cross examined. He denied the suggestion that the accused voluntarily came to the Police Out Post. He again denied that it was wrong to suggest that he did not catch the accused while he was running away. No suggestion was put to him in the cross examination that when the accused was caught, the accused told them that Manoharlal (PW I I) had stabbed the deceased victim. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of PW 9 Chain Singh. After making a close scrutiny of what he stated, we are unable to dismiss or discard the testimony of PW 9 Chain Singh. His testimony can not be disbelieved simply on the ground that ne is a police constable. The fact, therefore, stands proved that while the accused was running desperately in a bid to escape, he was caught by PW 9 Chain Singh. The clothes of the accused were stained with blood and blood was also oozing out from his thumb and palm. The accused did not state before the witness (PW 9 Chain Singh) after he was caught that it was PW 11 Manoharlal who had stabbed the deceased victim Ramesh Chandra. 22. It, therefore, flows from the evidence of the witnesses discussed above that the accused jumped behind the hostel from the back window of his room No. 44. He started running desperately in a bid to escape. He was followed by some students. He did not stop despite repeated calls being made to him asking him to stop. He was caught by the police constable Chain Singh (PW 9) He did not disclose before him that it was Manohar Lal (PW II) who had stabbed the deceased. 23. The next set of evidence speaking against the accused is the discovery of knife (Article 11) in consequence of the disclosure statement made by him whilst under police custody. The Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammed (PW 25) deposed that after preparing the inquest report of the deceased in the General Hospital, he returned to his police Station. Bhopalpura. There he found the accused who was brought there by police constable Chain Singh (PW 9). The Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammed (PW 25) deposed that after preparing the inquest report of the deceased in the General Hospital, he returned to his police Station. Bhopalpura. There he found the accused who was brought there by police constable Chain Singh (PW 9). He arrested the accused at about 1.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 vide arrest memo Ex. P. 9. The Motbir witness of Ex. P. 9 is PW 10 Bhagwati Lal. He deposed that at about 1.30 or 2.00 A.M. he was called at the Police Station, Bhopalpura. The arrest memo Ex. P. 9 was prepared. When the accused was arrested, he was wearing Pajama and a shirt which were stained with blood. The blood was also there on the hands of the accused. The witness was not at all cross examined. In his statement under section 313, Cr. P.C. vide question No. 33, the accused admitted that he was arrested at police Station, Bhopalpura. The fact, therefore, stands proved that the accused was arrested at about 1.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 at Police Station, Bhopalpura where he was taken by the Police Constable PW 2 Chain Singh. 24. Mr. Gaur invited our attention to the statements of some witnesses who stated that the accused was seen in the hospital when the dead body of the victim was taken there. It appears to be a case of misimpression of the witnesses. As discussed above, the accused was arrested at Police Station, Bhopalpura at about 1.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974. This fact of his arrest has been admitted by the accused himself, as discussed above. 25. The Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammad (PW 25) deposed that after his arrest, the accused made the disclosure statement which he recorded in Ex. P. 5. This disclosure statement was made at about 3.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 in the presence of PW 1 Virendra Singh and one Narendra Kumar in the Teachers Training College. PW 1 Virendra Singh was a lecturer in the college at the relevant time. He deposed that the accused whilst in police custody gave the information to the Investigating Officer in his presence which was recorded in Ex. P 5. The information related to the discovery of the knife used in the commission of the offence. The witness further stated that the information was recorded in Ex. He deposed that the accused whilst in police custody gave the information to the Investigating Officer in his presence which was recorded in Ex. P 5. The information related to the discovery of the knife used in the commission of the offence. The witness further stated that the information was recorded in Ex. P. 5 in his presence as stated by the accused. PW 1 Virendra Singh is again an independent person not interested either in the accused or in the deceased. He holds a responsible post and we are unable to conceive that he would falsely depose against the accused for no rhyme or reason. Nothing has been brought on record coy the accused to show that the witness has any grudge so as to falsely deposed against the accused. It therefore, stands proved that the accused, after his arrest made the disclosure statement Ex. P. 5 before the Investigating Officer expressing his willingness to get the knife discovered. 26. The Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammed (PW 25) and PW 1 Virendra Singh further deposed that in consequence of the information furnished by the accused, the accused took them in the back side of the room No. 44 and took out knife (Article 11) lying concealed in a bush. The knife was seized and sealed. Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited from them which may make their testimony suspicious or untrustworthy. PW 1 Virendra Singh, as stated above, is an independent person having no favours for anybody. Both these witnesses have explained that the use of torch and electric light were made to enable the accused to find out the place where he had thrown the knife (Article 11). Both these witnesses further stated that when the knife was recovered, it was stained with blood. 27. The accused denied to have given the information and to have the knife recovered in consequence of it. His denial is of no consequence in view of the trustworthy evidence of PW 1 Virendra Singh, Mr. Gaur invited our attention to the testimony of PW 6 Subhkaran and some other students. In cross-examination PW 6 Subhkaran stated that he had learnt before 2.00 A.M. that the knife was recovered. It was vehemently argued by Mr. His denial is of no consequence in view of the trustworthy evidence of PW 1 Virendra Singh, Mr. Gaur invited our attention to the testimony of PW 6 Subhkaran and some other students. In cross-examination PW 6 Subhkaran stated that he had learnt before 2.00 A.M. that the knife was recovered. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Gaur that in view of the testimony of PW 6 Subhkaran and other witnesses, it should be taken that the knife was recovered before 2.00 A.M. through some other independent source and it was wrongly shown subsequently to have been discovered at the instance of the accused and in consequence of the information furnished by him. We are unable to accept the contention. PW 1 Virendra Singh is a responsible person holding the post of lecturer in the college. He was neither interested in the deceased nor averse to the accused. It is, therefore, beyond our understanding that he would falsely introduce the story of recovery of weapon made in consequence of the information furnished by the accused and at his instance. What PW 6 Subhkaran and other, persons admitted appears to be their impression. None of them stated that the knife was recovered in their presence. As such what they deposed about their coming to know of the recovery of the knife appears to be their personal impression and nothing more. The Investigating Officer could not know as to where the knife was thrown in the bushes until and unless a disclosure statement was made before him by the accused. It is not the case of the accused that Manohar Lal (PW II) was arrested and the knife was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by him. In view of these circumstances, we agree with the finding of the Court below that knife (Article II) was discovered in consequence of the information furnished by the accused and at his instance. This information and discovery speak volumes against the accused and constituted a very formidable piece of circumstantial evidence against hint. 28. At the time of arrest, the accused was wearing bushirt (Article 6) and Pajama (Article 7). Both these clothes were seized and sealed at about 6.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 vide seizure memo Ex. P. 3 and the statements of the Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammed (PW 25) & Motbirs PW 1 Virendra Singh and PW 8 Natha Lal. 28. At the time of arrest, the accused was wearing bushirt (Article 6) and Pajama (Article 7). Both these clothes were seized and sealed at about 6.30 A.M. on December 23, 1974 vide seizure memo Ex. P. 3 and the statements of the Investigating Officer Sabir Mohammed (PW 25) & Motbirs PW 1 Virendra Singh and PW 8 Natha Lal. The accused, in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. vide question No. 4 gave no reply as to whether his clothes were seized and sealed by the police. The testimony of the Investigating Officer and the Motbir witnesses PW I Virendra Singh and PW 8 Natha Lal clearly establishes the accused was wearing bushirt (Art. 6) and Pajama (Art. 7) when he was arrested. They were stained with blood at that time. Both these clothes were seized and sealed. 29. The clothes of the accused, the deceased clothes and the knife Article 11 were sent for chemical examination. The report of the Serologist is Ex. P. 23. All them articles, namely the clothes of the deceased, the bushirt and Pajama of the accused and the Knife (Article 11) were found stained with human blood. 30. Thus, all the sets of circumstantial evidences and proved against the accused. 31. It would be now proper at this stage to turn to the explanation of the accused given by him in this statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. and the written statement filed by him. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Gaur that the explanation given by the accused should be taken into consideration and should be generally accepted unless found untrue and unfounded. It was argued that the explanation given by the accused was wrongly rejected and dismissed by the trial Court. 32. The law is well settled that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the explanation of the accused should be taken into consideration and should generally be accepted if the various incriminating circumstances stand satisfactorily explained. The reason is that the accused is not required to prove his defence to the hilt nor is he required to lead evidence in defence. At times his explanation may be convincing and sufficient to rebut the prosecution case but at the same time there is no law that every sort of explanation, good or bad or indifferent, should be accepted irrespective of its merits. The explanation of the accused should be rational and not extravagant. At times his explanation may be convincing and sufficient to rebut the prosecution case but at the same time there is no law that every sort of explanation, good or bad or indifferent, should be accepted irrespective of its merits. The explanation of the accused should be rational and not extravagant. If the explanation given by the accused is, on the face of it, improbable or inadequate or unconvincing or of manifest after thought,it has to be rejected. An irrational or unnatural or a highly improbable explanation does not rebut the prosecution case and should, therefore, be ignored. 33. In the instant case, the explanation furnished by the accused is that he took the victim Ramesh Chandra to his room No. 54 to finalise the programme to go to their home town Nimka Thana. while they were talking PW 11 Manohar Lal (Partner of the accused in room No. 44) came there with a mask on his face. Manohar Lal took out a knife from the pocket of his pent and started stabbing the victim Ramesh Chandra. When he tried to intervene, Manohar Lal tried to stab him. He raised his hands and thus sustained injuries on his palm and thumb. He got bewildered and confused. He, therefore, jumped down in the behind from the back door of the window. He started running to go to the Police Out Post. He reached there at the Police Out Post and narrated the incident to the Police Constables. It was in this process that his clothes also smeared with blood. We have already discussed above at the appropriate place that PW II Manohar Lal had left the hotel in the noon of December 21, 1974 and went to his brother who was living in the said city. He returned from there only at about 10.00 A.M. on December 23, 1984. We may repeat that none of the prosecution witnesses admitted that PW 11 Manohar Lal was present in the hostel on December 22, 1974 the day of incident or at the crucial time of the incident. We I have already held above that the attendance register does not prove his presence in the hostel. Therefore, the explanation of the accused that Manohar Lal (PW 11) came to room No. 44 and stabbed the victim Ramesh Chandra is wholly unfounded and baseless with no truth in it. 34. We I have already held above that the attendance register does not prove his presence in the hostel. Therefore, the explanation of the accused that Manohar Lal (PW 11) came to room No. 44 and stabbed the victim Ramesh Chandra is wholly unfounded and baseless with no truth in it. 34. The conduct of the accused immediately after the crime is a relevant factor in judging his guilt or innocence. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused after the commission of the crime belies and betrays his explanation. He jumped from the back window of room No. 44 and started running. He was chased by PW 5 Shiv Prakash and three others, as discussed above. Shri Prakash (PW 5) was constantly raising the cries asking in accused to stop and let them know what had taken place. But the accused did not stop and continued to run desperately in the cold dark night. He could not be caught by the hostellers who chased him. The explanation of the accused that he went to the Police Out Post stands falsified by the direct testimony of PW 9 Chain Singh, according to whom he and other police constables ran after the accused and caught him. The suggestion put in coss-examination to PW 9 Chain Singh that the accused voluntarily came to the police out post has been categorically denied by him. It also flows from the testimony of PW 9 Chain Singh that the accused did not narrate to him that Manohar Lal (PW 11) had stabbed the victim Ramesh Chandra. All these circumstances show that the accused, after committing the murder of Ramesh Chandra jumped from the back window of room No. 44 and ran desperately to make good his escape. But his attempt failed because of his being caught by police constables Chain Singh (PW 9) and others The explanation of the accused is thus false and fantastic and was rightly rejected by the trial Court. 35. We may then deal with some other contentions raised by Mr. Gaur. The first is that the prosecution has not alleged any motive for the commission of the crime. It was argued that in absence of the allegation of motive, the prosecution case should be taken as doubtful against the accused. We are unable to accept the contention. 35. We may then deal with some other contentions raised by Mr. Gaur. The first is that the prosecution has not alleged any motive for the commission of the crime. It was argued that in absence of the allegation of motive, the prosecution case should be taken as doubtful against the accused. We are unable to accept the contention. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not become suspicious or doubtful simply because the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the crime. The absence of proof of motive simply indicates that the prosecution evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused should be closely and cautiously examined. The absence of motive is only factor to be taken into consideration. When there is convincing a evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, the absence of motive loses its entire significance. The motive then recedes in the back ground The motive at times is a secret element which the culprit harbours in his heart. It is why the motive has not been made an ingredient of the offence under section 302, IPC. It is true that in the instant case, no motive was suggested by the prosecution. But as the evidence adduced by the prosecution fully establishes the charge against the accused, the absence of motive has no material consequence. 36. It was next argued by the learned counsel that the real first information report has been suppressed by the prosecution. The first information report Ex. P 7 has come into existence afterwards and is, therefore, not admissible in evidence. The suppression of the real first information report renders the entire prosecution case suspicious. It was argued that according to police constable PW 9 Chain Singh, he informed the concerned Police Station, Bhopalpura that stabbing had taken place in the Teachers Training College. This information was recorded in the Rojnamclta of Police Station, Bhopalpura But the information so recorded has not been produced by the prosecution. That information recorded in the Rojnamcha is the real first information report. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention and find no merit in it. PW 9 Chain Singh deposed that he simply heard the noise that some student had stabbed the other student. He communicated this information to the police Station, Bhopalpura. Now, this information is too vague to amount to the information of the commission of any crime. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention and find no merit in it. PW 9 Chain Singh deposed that he simply heard the noise that some student had stabbed the other student. He communicated this information to the police Station, Bhopalpura. Now, this information is too vague to amount to the information of the commission of any crime. What PW 9 Chain Singh heard was simply a noise. It is not there in his evidence that some body came to him and informed about the stabbing. Since the information based on noise was vague, no case could be registered on it. In these circumstances the production of the entry in Rojnamcha was not necessary, and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for its non-production. The contention of the learned counsel is thus without substance. 37. As stated earlier, the prosecution case hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. Now, in case based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence should be so strong as to point very clearly to the guilt of the accused. Where a case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that in order to justify an inference of guilt, the inculpabatory fact should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt. In other words, the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence must unmistakably point towards the guilt of the accused. 38. In other words, the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence must unmistakably point towards the guilt of the accused. 38. In the instant case, the various sets of circumstantial evidence, discussed above, namely (1) the accused took the victim Ramesh Chandra to his room No. 44, (2) in room No. 44 the accused and the deceased Ramesh Chandra were the only persons when the deceased was done to death, (3) the accused was seen jumping behind room No. 44 from its back window and the accused ran desperately and despite repeated calls being made asking nim to stop and explain as to what had taken place he did not stop and continued to run desperately, (4) while running the accused caught by the police constables, (5) the clothes of the accused were found stained with blood, (6) knife (Article 11) was recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the accused whilst under police custody and (7) the clothes of the accused and the knife (Article 11) were found stained with human blood on chemical examination when assimilated and taken together leave no room for doubt that victim Ramesh Chandra was done to death by the accused. The accused and the accused alone is the perpetrator of the murder of Ramesh Chandra. 39. For the reasons discussed above, we find no force in these appeals. Accused Satya Narain was rightly convicted and no interference is called for. 40. The appeals of accused Satya Narain are consequently dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******