PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are interlined as both assail the correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1989. ( 2 ) THE appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') stood trial being charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short, 'ipc') for having committed murder by intentionally causing death of Rameshwar Sethi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), in furtherance of their common intention. ( 3 ) A brief resume of the fact situation a ( as) unfolded by the prosecution during trial is as follows : accused Kamala is the wife of the deceased. Out of their wedlock four children were born. A house was provided to the deceased and accused Kamala under Indira Awas Yojana at village Gadia. Accused Budha alias Srustidhar Singh is married to Asana and they have children. Budha owned two houses at village Gadia, one being his ancestral house, and the other which he got under the aforesaid Indira Awas Yojana. His children used to reside in the ancestral house, while in the house allotted to him by the Government he was residing with his wife Asana. He had developed illicit relationship with accused Kamal, which led to difference between him and his wife. A meeting was convened by the villagers at the request of Asana on 23/05/1989. The said meeting was attended by the village Ward Member, Sarpanch and other important persons of the locality, and both the accused persons. In the meeting accused Budha admitted that the accused Kamala was his concubine. Accused Kamala also admitted that she had illicit relationship with accused Budha. Before taking any decision, it was decided in the meeting that the deceased should be called to the meeting. Murair Marandi (P. W. 5) was sent to call the deceased, but accused Kamala stood at the doorstep of the house and did not allow P. W. 5 to go inside to call the deceased, saying that he was ill and was taking rest. On 24-5-1989 Maheswar Sethi (P. W. 2), the elder brother of the deceased, came to the village on being informed by Sadhu Charan Digar (P. W. 3) about illness of the deceased. He went to the house of the deceased and wanted to see him. On 24-5-1989 Maheswar Sethi (P. W. 2), the elder brother of the deceased, came to the village on being informed by Sadhu Charan Digar (P. W. 3) about illness of the deceased. He went to the house of the deceased and wanted to see him. Again accused Kamala stood at the door step with a view not to allow him to go inside. However, P. W. 2 managed to go inside the house and found the deceased lying in a sleeping position having his face downwards and a cloth covered over him. He noticed bleeding injuries on the forehead of the deceased. Since the deceased did not respond to his calls, he immediately rushed to Gadia dispensary to call the doctor, but the doctor being absent he could not get him. A doctor from Kostha had come to village Gadia on some other work. At the request of P. W. 2, he went to the house of the deceased, and on examination declared the deceased dead. During investigation it transpired that the accused Budha had come to the house of the deceased with meat, cooked the same and after taking his dinner left for his house on 21-5-1989. As usual, the deceased and accused Kamala slept on the floor and their children slept on two cots. In the night Gitarani Sethi (P. W 4), the daughter of the deceased having heard a groaning sound woke up and found accused Budha pressing the face of the deceased with a guilt and her mother catching hold of both his legs. Accused Kamal asked her to sleep threatening to kill her if she made a sound. Being afraid the girl pretended to have gone asleep. On the next day morning she woke up and found her father to have sustained head injuries. Accused Budha who was present in the house asked her to sever up the face and head of her father. Though her father was alive, he could not speak anything. On the next day he regained his sense and on being asked he said that he was assaulted by accused Budha with an axe while his wife, accused Kamala, had caught hold of his legs. Thereafter the deceased became senseless and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Information was lodged at Suliapada Police Station by P. W. 2. On the next day he regained his sense and on being asked he said that he was assaulted by accused Budha with an axe while his wife, accused Kamala, had caught hold of his legs. Thereafter the deceased became senseless and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Information was lodged at Suliapada Police Station by P. W. 2. Since he had no information about the details, P. W. 2 indicated about the death upon which investigation was undertaken. While in custody accused Budha made a disclosure statement about concealment of weapon of offence i. e. the axe and led the Investigating Officer and the witnesses and gave recovery of the weapon (axe) from his house which was stained with blood, and some human hair sticking to it. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused persons stood trial. ( 4 ) THE plea of both the accused persons is complete denial of the allegations levelled against them. ( 5 ) IN order to further its case prosecution examined eight witnesses. Since there was no eyewitness to the occurrence, different circumstances linking the accused persons to the crime were taken into consideration. According to the learned trial Judge, five circumstances were available. They were as follows : (1) Motive :- That accused Kamala had extra-marital relation with accused Budha for which both she and accused Budha wanted to eliminate the deceased. (2) False explanation :- That both the accused persons gave false explanation that the deceased was ill though in fact he was not. (3) Presence of accused Budha in the bed room of the deceased in the night of occurrence and the part played by him as well as accused Kamala as deposed to by a child witness P. W. 4. (4) Dying declaration of the deceased before P. W. 4. (5) Recovery of blood stained axe ( M. O. I.) from the house of accused Budha. The learned trial Judge found that the circumstances clearly established the complicity of accused persons and accordingly, convicted them under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 6 ) IN support of appeals both M/s. Sashi Das and B. N. Panda for accused appellants strenuously urged that the circumstances are not sufficient to come to the conclusion about the guilt of the accused. ( 6 ) IN support of appeals both M/s. Sashi Das and B. N. Panda for accused appellants strenuously urged that the circumstances are not sufficient to come to the conclusion about the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that when the fate of the case depends on acceptability of circumstantial evidence, the same should be of such as to rule out possibility of every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The evidence of P. W. 4 has been attacked on the ground that she was examined long after the investigation was undertaken, and her evidence lacked credibility. Motive as indicated by the prosecution to be the foundation of the crime, according to them, has not been established. The learned counsel for State on the other hand submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) IT is trite law that where the prosecution wants conviction of a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence the facts and circumstances proved must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of the accused. The circumstances must be so clear that the only conclusion of a reasonable person would be that the deceased did not die at the hands of any other person, but the deceased (accused? ). The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled to the extent that the circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In cases where the prosecution relies strongly on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays an important role in order to tilt the scale against the accused. The circumstances proved must be complete and of a conclusive nature. The circumstances relied upon must forge such a chain as to support the sole hypothesis that the accused was the author of the crime. All the incriminating facts and circumstances should be fully established by cogent and reliable evidence and the facts so established must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained away on any other reasonable hypothesis than of his guilt. The evidence should point inextricably to one and one only conclusion that the accused and no other was the perpetrator of the crime. The evidence should point inextricably to one and one only conclusion that the accused and no other was the perpetrator of the crime. Where there is no eyewitness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on the 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. ( 8 ) FIVE circumstances described as Panchsheel of circumstantial evidence have been indicated by the apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . They are : (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Unlike direct evidence, the indirect light circumstances may throw, may vary from suspicion to certitude and care must be taken to avoid subjective pitfalls of exaggerating a conjecture into a conviction. ( 9 ) EVERY evidentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out certainly. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of sure guilt binding the accused. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked onto the next and on again may (sic) the accused inescapably. Only then can (sic) of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. Start of that it would be undesirable to convict a person. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked onto the next and on again may (sic) the accused inescapably. Only then can (sic) of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. Start of that it would be undesirable to convict a person. ( 10 ) COMING to the circumstances highlighted by the prosecution, we find that the star witness so far as the prosecution is concerned is the daughter of the accused Kamala and the deceased. With reference to the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 5, the co-villagers, it is revealed that they have stated about the meeting held over extra-marital relationship between both the accused persons at the instance of Asana, wife of accused Budha. It is absolutely clear that the prosecution has been able to substantially indicate the motive of the killing. The evidence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 gains support from the evidence of P. W. 2, the brother of the deceased. P. W. 4, the daughter has no hostility to speak about such illicit relationship between the accused Kamala and accused Budha. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the explanation given by the accused persons about the deceased being ill and therefore, not able to come outside. Evidence has been led through the mouth of P. Ws. 2 and 3 in this regard. Both P. Ws. 2 and 4 have stated that they had noticed the deceased lying inside the room with incised head injuries. P. Ws. 3 and 5 have stated that when they went near the deceased to call him to the meeting which was convened in the village at the request of Asana, accused Kamala falsely told that the deceased was ill. P. W. 5, who had been sent by the villagers to call the deceased stated that accused Kamala did not permit him to go inside the house to call the deceased on the pretext that the deceased was ailing. In her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code') accused Kamala has accepted that P. W. 5 came in search of the deceased, but being ill he could not come out. The evidence of P. W. 2 in this regard is also relevant. In her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code') accused Kamala has accepted that P. W. 5 came in search of the deceased, but being ill he could not come out. The evidence of P. W. 2 in this regard is also relevant. He has stated that he was informed by Sadhu Charan Digar (P. W. 3) about the deceased being ill and on account of that he was unable to attend the meeting. On a conjoint reading of the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 it is crystal clear that accused Kamala gave false explanation that the deceased was ailing. Presence of accused Budha in the bedroom of the deceased and asking her to cover the head of her father (the deceased) has been highlighted by P. W. 4. The said witness is some other than the daughter of the deceased, who stated about the dying declaration made by the deceased before her. Attempt has been made to show that the witness was a child witness and therefore, much credence should not be attached to her testimony. Her delayed examination and non-disclosure to outsiders about what she stated subsequently has been emphasised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. According to them, her conduct is unusual and therefore, no credence is to be put on her evidence. It has to be borne in mind that the deceased was the father of the witness and one of the accused happened to be her mother. There is evidence on record that she was examined immediately after the occurrence and subsequently was examined again when the second Investigating Officer took over charge. The first examination was held on 25-5-1989 as revealed from record. There is no reason for this witness to falsely implicate her own mother and connect her to the brutal death of her father. The evidence of P. W. 4 about the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be brushed aside lightly. She has categorically stated what she had heard from her father, who was according to her at the threshold of death. She also has described in detail the role played by both the accused while causing death of the deceased. There is no material discrepancy in her evidence justifying rejection thereof. During investigation certain articles were seized. She has categorically stated what she had heard from her father, who was according to her at the threshold of death. She also has described in detail the role played by both the accused while causing death of the deceased. There is no material discrepancy in her evidence justifying rejection thereof. During investigation certain articles were seized. The seizure of the bloodstained axe on the basis of the statement made by the accused while in custody is also a relevant factor. Chemical examiner's report and report of the serologist (Exts. 9 and 10) reveal that the axe was stained with blood. So far as the attempt by the accused persons to conceal the deadbody of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of the witnesses is clear, cogent and no crack has appeared, notwithstanding the elaborate cross-examination. The totality of the circumstances has been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. We are of the considered view that the accused persons have been rightly convicted under Section 302/34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeals fail and are dismissed. ( 11 ) D. M. PATNAIK, J. I agree. Appeals dismissed. .