JUDGMENT (ORAL) Dr. E.S. de Silva, J. - The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 48/92 who has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mapusa, for offences of attempt to commit rape, robbery and murder. By judgment dated 23rd March, 1994 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty for offences under sections 302, 376 read with Sections 511, 394 and 380 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo six months R.I. in respect of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., three years R.I. in respect of the offence under section 376 read with Section 511 of I.P.C., five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to, undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default to undergo three months R.I. so far the offence under Section 380 is concerned. A further direction was given in the judgment that all the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that on or about 4th March, 1992, between 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., at Ambirna, Socorro, the accused attempted to commit rape on Sangeeta Babu Redkar and on the same occasion robbed her gold chain, a gold ring and a wrist watch she was wearing and in the process of committing robbery and knowingly has intentionally caused her death by throttling her neck. Thereupon on or about the intervening night of 4th and 5th March, 1992 the accused committed theft of a two-in-one set of Phillips make from the house of Sangieeta's mother, Jayashree, by dishonestly removing it from her custody. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by relying on the evidence recorded by the prosecution found the accused otherwise and sentenced him accordingly. 4. Shri Bhodankar, learned counsel for the appellant accused has submitted that the conviction of the appellant which is essentially based on circumstantial evidence is not justified and is far from being supported by reliable and conclusive evidence on record. It was urged by the learned counsel that at the very outset the motive of the crime being purportedly to commit rape and theft on the person of Sangeeta has not been proved. It was urged by the learned counsel that at the very outset the motive of the crime being purportedly to commit rape and theft on the person of Sangeeta has not been proved. It was contended that as far as rape is concerned there is no medical evidence in this regard and so far the theft of gold ornaments worn by Sangeeta the evidence is not satisfactory not only because the gold ornaments were not properly identified but also there is nothing to show that deceased Sangeeta's ornaments were actually found in possession of the accused. The learned counsel has submitted in this regard that the discovery panchanama held by the investigation agency cannot at all be relied not only because it was drawn without strict observance of the legal requirements but also due to the fact that the same cannot be deemed as proved by the panch witness who has deposed that he was not even present when the actual recovery of the gold ornaments was done purportedly by the Police. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that on the point of injuries found on the deceased it was difficult to believe in the deposition of the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination because according to him when the body was found, the same was in a high state of decomposition. The learned counsel has also urged that there was quite a substantial delay on the part of the complainant to file the F.I.R. in this case because the murder had purportedly occurred on the night of 4th March, 1992 after which the body was found in the bushes only on 6th March, 1992 in a decomposed state. The "F.I.R. was admittedly lodged only on 7th March, 1992. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that there was delay again in arresting the accused in Kerala. Admittedly the investigation agency was in a position to know his address and in spite of that the accused was detained by the Police at his residence only after about 25 days. The prosecution has utterly failed in this regard to explain not only the delay in filing the F.I.R. but also in arresting the accused in this case. Admittedly the investigation agency was in a position to know his address and in spite of that the accused was detained by the Police at his residence only after about 25 days. The prosecution has utterly failed in this regard to explain not only the delay in filing the F.I.R. but also in arresting the accused in this case. The learned counsel also pointed out that the non-examination of the Inspector Somashekhar of Kerala as also of the Police Officer Calangutkar, who has purportedly conducted the panchanama of recovery of the gold ornaments, has cast a serious doubt on the prosecution story that the said gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of the accused. The learned counsel has also taken exception from the fact that the prosecution overlooked the testimony of the accused’s mother Rashmi who has deposed in this case by stating that when the accused returned from 90a to Kerala he has not brought anything from there, namely, any gold ornaments. Being so, learned counsel contended, the Court was not entitled to draw any inference or presumption against the accused under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel that so far the only circumstance which appeared to be against the accused and was the fact of the accused having been last seen along with the deceased Sangeeta, still there was some doubt on this aspect bearing in mind that there is internal evidence on record to show that when Sangeeta left the house of her brother Anil on the fateful night, purportedly along with the accused, the said Anil accompanied Sangeeta and the accused for some time before he returned home. Learned counsel then submitted that this fact by itself could therefore at the most create only a suspicion against the accused and not more than that. It was urged that strong suspicion by no means could take place of legal proof for his conviction in an offence of murder. 5. Learned counsel then submitted that this fact by itself could therefore at the most create only a suspicion against the accused and not more than that. It was urged that strong suspicion by no means could take place of legal proof for his conviction in an offence of murder. 5. Reliance was placed in this regard on the case of Smt. Basanti v. State of Himachal Pradesh1) wherein it has been held that when there is no reliable and admissible direct evidence to connect the accused with commission of the offence, strong suspicion against the accused cannot take place of proof and only when circumstances proved by prosecution lead to no other inference except that of guilt of the accused then the conviction of the accused is proper. The learned counsel has cited another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab2) which has reiterated the settled principle already laid down with regard to appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial wherein conviction of an accused is based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court has laid down in this regard that in a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of such a nature as to be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. The learned counsel therefore concluded that in the instant case once the prosecution story could not be said as proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was bound to be straightaway acquitted. 6. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel a brief reference to the evidence recorded by the prosecution may be usefully extracted in this case. P.W. 1 Jayshri Redkar, who is the mother of the deceased Sangeeta, has stated that she is living at her Porvorim house which had one extra room which was being occupied by the accused purportedly on the payment or rent for a period of about four months prior to the incident. Prior to that he has been also in occupation of that room in the year 1990, but the accused was not paying rent and on the contrary he had borrowed some money from her alleging that he required the money to look after his father who was very ill after the death of his mother. Prior to that he has been also in occupation of that room in the year 1990, but the accused was not paying rent and on the contrary he had borrowed some money from her alleging that he required the money to look after his father who was very ill after the death of his mother. For that purpose she had even pawned her gold chain and obtained a loan, out of which she had given him Rs.2000/-. However, the accused repaid her that money, although no interest was paid to her. In addition she had paid to the accused Rs.500/- to do the plastering of her house as the accused was a mason by profession. But ultimately the accused brought two bags of cement which were not used and which was rendered as unfit for use. She further deposed that on 4th March, 1992 the accused left the house, stating that he would return with one labourer Shekhar for doing the plastering work of her house. Thereafter the accused who had told her that he would return at about 8 p.m. after giving the message to Shekhar to come on the next day, ultimately returned alone at about 10 p.m. At that time the accused was sweating and very nervous. On seeing the accused sweating and nervous, she questioned him and he told that he had gone with a vehicle of his friend for transporting stones all the way to Mapusa, but that his work there failed because for want of electricity. He further told her that he had already had his meal at Mapusa and was not hungry. After reaching Porvorim bus stop he came running because it was dark. Despite this fact she gave him some food to eat. The accused ate a little and drank some water and thereafter went to his room to sleep. At about 3 a.m. she got awake and came out of her room in the kitchen, wherein she had kept her tape recorder. She then found the tape-recorder missing and she noticed that the kitchen door was also open. That door was leading to the road being the back door of the house. She immediately shouted for her daughter Shobha who was sleeping in her room and for seeking assistance from the accused she called out his name. However there was no reply. She then found the tape-recorder missing and she noticed that the kitchen door was also open. That door was leading to the road being the back door of the house. She immediately shouted for her daughter Shobha who was sleeping in her room and for seeking assistance from the accused she called out his name. However there was no reply. When she went to see his room, the same was open and the accused was not there. She therefore sent Shobha to Socorro to inform her son who is staying in another house at Socorro, which also belongs to her, with his wife Annu and the deceased. When Shobha went to Socorro she was told by Anil that on the previous night, at about 9 p.m., the accused had been there to his house at Socorro and taken away with him the deceased Sangeeta saying that her mother was sick and that she had asked him to bring Sangeeta to Porvorim to help her. When Anil and Annu learnt about this fact they got panicky and immediately came to Porvorim. They then started searching for Sangeeta who had not reached home and for that purpose they first went to a priest at Mapusa to inquire about Sangeeta's whereabouts. The priest predicted that Sangeeta was very much alive and safe in Calangute in a lodge. Accordingly Anil and his wife Annu went to Calangute in search of Sangeeta and they searched for her from Bagao upto Calangute in all hotels and everywhere and only thereafter in the evening they reported the matter to the Police. On 6th March she along with others went to Socorro in search of a lady with divine powers (Santoshi Ma). She learnt that Santoshi Ma had gone to Porvorim and therefore they decided to go to Porvorim and started walking from Socorro to Porvorim. At that time she was accompanied by a girl whom she knows and whose name is Vasanti and her brother Dattaram besides her daughter Shobha. She further stated that before going to Porvorim they also searched for Sangeeta in two or three houses and while proceeding they observed a belt hanging on a branch of a tree. She wanted to go nearby to see but Dattaram told her that he would check. She further stated that before going to Porvorim they also searched for Sangeeta in two or three houses and while proceeding they observed a belt hanging on a branch of a tree. She wanted to go nearby to see but Dattaram told her that he would check. Accordingly when he went to see the belt he saw the dead body of Sangeeta lying by the side of the tree. This was in a jungle area. After the discovery of the body Vasanti and Dattaram went to the Police Station where Anil and Annu had already gone and reported the matter to the Police. She further stated that since the date of disappearance from her house the accused had 110t come to her house till the date of his arrest. Shown to her M.O. 9 and M.O. 11, which are the gold chain and ring, she identified the same as belonging to her daughter Sangeeta. She has stated that these ornaments had been made by her for Sangeeta. She also identified M.O. 10 being the wrist watch of her daughter Sangeeta. In cross-examination she denied the suggestion that on 4.3.1992 the deceased has stayed for the night in her house of Porvorim. She also denied that on the same day, (4.3.1992), at about 6 p.m., the accused came to her house and went away and never returned thereafter. In further cross, she said that on 5th March they did not go the Police Station first because they wanted to search for the deceased. She further clarified that the ornaments which Sangeeta was wearing were all of gold. She did not know the weight of her chain but was purchased by her when she was in Kuwait. It was more than half a pound. She further stated that she could not describe the design of the chain in detail but its locket was of leaf type. The length of the chain was till the chest and the inscription in the locket was bearing the words "I Love You". She further stated that M.O. 9 was always worn by the deceased as also M.O. 10 and M.O. 11. M.O. 9 and M.O. 10 had also been purchased by her for her daughter Sangeeta. 17th January, 1995. 7. P.W.3 Shobha Vidnakar stated that she is Sangeeta's sister who was murdered by the accused. She further stated that M.O. 9 was always worn by the deceased as also M.O. 10 and M.O. 11. M.O. 9 and M.O. 10 had also been purchased by her for her daughter Sangeeta. 17th January, 1995. 7. P.W.3 Shobha Vidnakar stated that she is Sangeeta's sister who was murdered by the accused. She knew the accused who was staying in a room of their house at Porvorim as a tenant. The accused was working as a mason. He had done some cement work in their house for two days. On 4th March he went to another house of theirs at Socorro and told Sangeeta that her mother was sick at Porvorim. On that very night when her mother got awake she found the room door of their house open and the tape-recorder missing. As they suspected the accused of having committed the offence they searched for hi70 but they did not find him. Therefore they went to inform her brother who lived at Socorro about the theft of the tape-recorder from their house. There she came to know that the accused had taken Sangeeta with him on the previous night. On the next day they went to the house of one Vasanti who was their neighbour in order to contact one lady whose help they were seeking to trace Sangeeta. The brother of Vasanti inquired from her j\S to which places they had searched for Sangeeta. They told him they had searched for the deceased all round but they could not find her. While they were coming back to their house at Provorim they saw a belt hanging on a tree by the side of the road. Dattaram who was accompanying them saw first the said belt. He went closer in order to find if there was any clue to trace Sangeeta. Dattaram went near the tree and saw the dead body of Sangeeta lying on the ground. She further stated that on 4th March, at about 8 p.m., the accused had left their house saying that he would go and engage the services of one Shetkar to help him in the work of plastering their house. He returned home at about 10 p.m. When he came back, at about 10 p.m., he was found sweating and nervous. He told her mother that since there were no lights he had come running from the bus stop. He returned home at about 10 p.m. When he came back, at about 10 p.m., he was found sweating and nervous. He told her mother that since there were no lights he had come running from the bus stop. He did not want to have meals although her mother gave him some food to eat. He hardly ate that food and went to his room. At that time the accused was wearing a green shirt and a black pant. In cross examination she denied that the accused had never stayed in their house and that he did not return to the house on 4.3.1992 at 10 p.m. as stated by her earlier. 8. P. W. 4 Annu Redkar has stated that she is married to Anil Redkar who is the brother of the deceased Sangeeta and they were all residing in their house at Socorro. Her mother-in-law, who is Sangeeta's mother, along with her father-in-law were residing in another house at Porvorim. Sangeeta was staying with them and visiting her mother at Porvorim very often. She came to know the accused when she happened to visit her in laws at Porvorim where the accused was staying. She was told by her mother-in-law that the accused was residing in their house at Provorim as a tenant. Shobha is also her sister-in-law, i.e., Sangeeta's sister, who is married and has children and was also staying at her mother's house. Both Sangeeta and Shobha used to go to work at Britona. On 3.3.1992 the accused came to their house at Socorro and knocked at the door calling for her husband. Thereupon the accused spoke to Sangeeta for some time and left. On 4.3.1992, at about 8.15 p.m., the accused came again to their house and called for her husband to open the door. At that time she was cooking and her husband was watching T.V. Sangeeta was having her bath. The accused then informed Sangeeta that her mother was not well and she had been called by her mother. Her husband also heard the accused saying this to Sangeeta. Then she told Sangeeta that she had been to her mother-in-law's place and she had found her well. She wondered how the accused could inform her that her mother-in-law was sick. The accused then informed Sangeeta that her mother was not well and she had been called by her mother. Her husband also heard the accused saying this to Sangeeta. Then she told Sangeeta that she had been to her mother-in-law's place and she had found her well. She wondered how the accused could inform her that her mother-in-law was sick. She therefore advised Sangeeta that she should not go along with the accused at that time and could go on the next day in the morning. She gave this advice to her because it was dark and it was not proper for her to go to Porvorim along with the accused at that time. However the accused called Sangeeta out of the house and spoke to her for a few minutes. Sangeeta insisted on going along with the accused. Thereafter they had dinner at their house and while leaving she gave to Sangeeta some fish curry to be taken to her mother-in-law besides a battery torch in order to enable her to walk in the darkness. At that time Sangeeta was wearing a skirt and a top of churidar. She was also wearing a gold chain in her neck and ring and wrist watch. On 5.3.1992, at about 6.00 a.m., Shobha came to their house at Socorro and informed her about the missing of the tape-recorder from their house saying that the accused had also disappeared. She then told Shobha that on the previous night Sangeeta had gone home along with the accused and inquired from her whether the deceased had reached their house. Shobha then told them that the deceased had not come to their house on the previous night. In the meantime her husband got up and they all got frightened on hearing the news. They all came to Porvorim and started searching for Sangeeta around the house and in the vicinity, but could not trace her. Thereafter they went to a priest at Mapusa in order to find out about her whereabouts and they were told by the priest that the deceased was in Calangute and in good health. They therefore went to Calangute, but could not find her. Thereupon she and her husband went to Mapusa Police Station and file a missing report. They were advised by the Mapusa Police to file the report at the Betim Police Station which was accordingly filed, being Exh. They therefore went to Calangute, but could not find her. Thereupon she and her husband went to Mapusa Police Station and file a missing report. They were advised by the Mapusa Police to file the report at the Betim Police Station which was accordingly filed, being Exh. P.W. 4/A. At Betim Police Station they were told to come back to the Police Station on the next day. On that day one Dattaram and Pradeep came and informed the Police that they had noticed the dead body of Sangeeta at Ambirna, Socorro. She was taken to the place where the dead body was found and saw the dead body on the site. Shown M.O. 9 and M.O. 11 she identified the same as being the gold chain and gold finger ring which were worn by Sangeeta on the fateful night when she left their house along with the accused. She also identified M.O. 3 as being the tom red skirt and other clothes which the deceased was wearing on the night of the incident when she left their house. In cross examination she said that when Sangeeta was taken away by the accused from their house her husband also accompanied her to reach her to her mother-in-law's house, but he returned home within five minutes of their departure. He then told her that the deceased had said to him not to get worried and that she could go along with the accused to her mother's place. She further stated that the gold ornaments identified by her were belonging to Sangeeta and she used to wear those ornaments always at home. She was therefore able to recognize them as being the ornaments of her's. On 4th March, 1992 when the accused came to their house he was wearing a black pant and green shirt. She denied that the accused did not come to their house on 4.3 .1992. 9. P.W. 8 Anil Redkar has stated that he is the brother of Sangeeta and he stays along with his wife at one of their residential houses at Ambirna, Socorro. Sangeeta was also staying with them at Socorro while his mother along with his father, one sister and brother were staying in another house belonging to them at Porvorim. They used to visit each other very often. He knows the accused who is a mason by profession. Sangeeta was also staying with them at Socorro while his mother along with his father, one sister and brother were staying in another house belonging to them at Porvorim. They used to visit each other very often. He knows the accused who is a mason by profession. He used to reside in a room at their house in Porvorim. He used to come there only at night time to sleep. The accused had done some masonary/cement plastering in their house as per the instructions of his, mother. The relations between the accused and Sangeeta as well as the other members of their family were quite good and they were treating the accused as a family member. On 3rd March, 1992, at about 8 p.m., the accused visited their house at Socorro and on that night he had a talk with Sangeeta. When he asked the deceased what they talked, she replied that they spoke about the cement plastering of the wall of their house. On the next day i.e. on 4th March, 1992 the accused came again to their house at about 8.30 p.m. The accused came inside and told them that his mother was not well. He then advised Sangeeta not to go at that time, but to go on the next day. However Sangeeta started saying that she would go to see her mother on the same night. He then suggested to her to have dinner and go. Thereafter all of them including the accused sat for dinner. At about 9 p.m. his wife gave some curry in a stainless steel box to be given to his mother and also gave her a battery torch before she left. He then accompanied Sangeeta and the accused to, some distance to send them off and came back home. On the next day, at about 6.30 p.m., his other sister Shobha came and informed them that a tape recorder from their house was missing. He then inquired from Shobha as to whether Sangeeta who had gone home the previous night had reached safely to their house Shobha replied that Sangeeta had not come home on the previous night. Then they all went to Porvorim to find out about her whereabouts and when he came to know about the fact they were panicky. He then inquired from Shobha as to whether Sangeeta who had gone home the previous night had reached safely to their house Shobha replied that Sangeeta had not come home on the previous night. Then they all went to Porvorim to find out about her whereabouts and when he came to know about the fact they were panicky. They went to a ‘bhat’ to consult him who gave them some clues by saying that Sangeeta may be available in Calangute or Baga. They went to search for Sangeeta but could not find her. Therefore he went to the Police Station at Betim along with his wife at 4 p.m. and filed a missing report (Exh. P.W.4/A). The Police asked them to give a photo of his missing sister and accordingly they gave a photo of Sangeeta. This is the same photo which is marked as Exh. P.W. 8/A. On the next day P.W. 6 same to the Police Station and gave a report (Exh. P. W. 6/A) with regard to the tracing of the dead body of Sangeeta at Ambirna, Socorro, among the bushes. It was only subsequently that he lodged a complaint at Betim Police Station that Sangeeta had been murdered by the accused. Exh. P.W. 8/B is the complaint. He explained that the delay in lodging the complaint on 7th March, 1992 was due to the reason that on the previous day they were searching for their missing sister and only after tracing her dead body they had found that she had been murdered that they lodged a complaint. He identified Mos. 12 and 14 as being the green color shirt and black pant which the accused was wearing on the day he came to their house on 4.3.1992 and left along with Sangeeta. He also identified M.Os. 3, 9, 10 and 11 as being the same clothes which were worn by Sangeeta on the same night when she accompanied the accused while leaving their house on the night of 4.3.1992. In cross-examination he denied that on the night of 4.3.1992, when Sangeeta left their house, she was not wearing the gold chain marked M.O. 9. He also denied that on the same night the accused did not come at all to his house. 10. In cross-examination he denied that on the night of 4.3.1992, when Sangeeta left their house, she was not wearing the gold chain marked M.O. 9. He also denied that on the same night the accused did not come at all to his house. 10. P.W. 6 Dattaram Parvat has stated that on 6thMarch, 1992 Sangeeta's mother and sister Shobha came to their house to inform that Sangeeta was missing from their house on 4th March, 1992. They asked the daughter of his uncle Vasanti to accompany them to Santoshi Mata to find out the whereabouts of Sangeeta. They then all left to go to the house of Santoshi Mata. On the way Shobha told them that a thorough search was made for the deceased but she could not be found. However, she had seen a belt and she was able to show them the place where the belt was seen. On the way they found the belt hanging on the branch of a tree in the bushes. When he went closer they started looking for and they found the dead body of Sangeeta among the bushes. He then reported the matter to the Police. Exh. P.W. 6/A is the said report which bears his signature. 11. P.W. 17 Mahadev Sahadevan has stated that he knows the accused who stays close to his house at Chemmaruthi, village Varkala, Trivandrum District. On 30.3.1992 when he was in his house he saw the Circle Inspector Shomshekhar along with the Betim Police from Goa coming to the house of the accused. Seeing the police he rushed to the house of the accused to find out as to why the Police might have come to his house. When he went there he saw the door of the house of the accused closed. The Goa Police were inside the house of the accused. After about one hour they saw the Goa Police coming out of the house along with the accused. He saw the Goa Police coming out of the house of the accused with one tape recorder, one gold chain, one finger ring and one wrist watch. He identified the articles shown to him. Shown M.O. 9 he identified the same as the gold chain which was brought out of the house of the accused and attached under a panchanama. If he remembers well it was written on the locket the words "I Love You". He identified the articles shown to him. Shown M.O. 9 he identified the same as the gold chain which was brought out of the house of the accused and attached under a panchanama. If he remembers well it was written on the locket the words "I Love You". Shown M.O. 10 and M.O. 11 he identified the same as being the wrist watch and the gold ring which were brought out from the accused's house on that day by the Police and were subsequently attached. The panchanama is the same which has been marked as Exh. P.W. 17/A and bears his signature. In cross examination he said that while the Goa Police were inside the house and its door was latched from within, he was with the Circle Inspector Shomshekhar in the verandah of the accused's house. He further stated that the contents of the panchanama were not read over and explained to him. He also said that because the Police told him that M.O. 9 is a gold chain that he has stated that the same was a gold chain. On further question he said that the panchanama P.W. 17/A was not written in his presence. He had only signed on that panchanama. 12. P.W. 18 Mani Acharya has stated that he is a gold-smith by profession having his own jewellery shop known as 'Arun Jewellery Works' . He knows the accused who was employed in a construction Company which had put up a building across his shop at Atingal. He stated that he opened that shop in February, 1991 and somewhere about six months thereafter the accused came to work in the building construction. Somewhere in the month of March, 1992 the accused came to his shop with a broken chain and asked to rejoin it. He paid him Rs.3/- for the purpose after he repaired the chain. This was sometime between 10 to 15th March, 1992. Shown M.O. 9 he said that it was the same broken chain the accused brought to his shop in the month of March, 1992 for the purpose of repairing it. Within 15 days thereafter the Police came along with the accused to his shop and asked him whether he knew the accused. Shown M.O. 9 he said that it was the same broken chain the accused brought to his shop in the month of March, 1992 for the purpose of repairing it. Within 15 days thereafter the Police came along with the accused to his shop and asked him whether he knew the accused. He replied in the affirmative and thereafter the Police showed him the gold chain and asked him whether he had repaired it to which he also replied in the affirmative. He also told the Police that the gold chain was brought by the accused to his shop for the purpose of repairing it. In cross-examination he denied that the said accused never visited his shop with the gold chain (M.O. 9). 13. P.W. 19 Rashmi has stated that she is the mother of the accused who was working in Goa for some time and came back to his native place at Kerala where he was staying of late. The photograph P. W. 8/ A she said that the accused had brought the said photograph to her native place and had shown to her. He did not say anything about the girl depicted in the photograph shown to her. The accused is not married. He was doing masonary work. At that time when the accused showed the photograph to her he stayed with her at Trivandrum for 9 months. After ab6ut a month he came back to her place and at that time he did not bring anything with him from Goa. She further stated that about two years back the accused returned back to his native place from Goa. Thereafter the Goa police came to her place to take the accused back to Goa. The Police did not attach any property from her house nor did they take anything to Goa from their place. 14. P.W. 16 Dr. Puranand Audi has stated that he is working in the Goa Medical College as Asst. Professor of Forensic Medicine. On 6th March, 1992 he had done the autopsy on the dead body of Sangeeta at the request of Betim Police Station. There were in all 11 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Injury No) was a bruise on the right side of the neck just below the angle of the lower jaw. Professor of Forensic Medicine. On 6th March, 1992 he had done the autopsy on the dead body of Sangeeta at the request of Betim Police Station. There were in all 11 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Injury No) was a bruise on the right side of the neck just below the angle of the lower jaw. Injury No.2 was also a bruise on the left side of the neck which is below the lower jaw. Injury No.3 was a bruise on the inner middle part of the right thigh. Injury No.4 was a bruise below injury No.3 and 0.5 cms. outer side of it. Injury No.5 was also a bruise on the inner middle part of the left thigh. Injury no. 6 was also a bruise below injury no. 5 and 0.5 cms. on the outer side of it. Injury no. 7 was also a bruise below injury No.6 and 0.5 cms. outer side of it. All the injuries NO.1 to 7 were ante mortem in nature and were caused by the impact of a blunt force. The remaining injuries were post-mortem, some of them caused by ant bites. All the injuries were shown in the diagram, at page 4 of the post mortem report No. 137/92. He produced the post mortem report which is marked as Exh. P.W. 16/A and which bears his signature. He had given the final cause of death as due to pressure on the neck. In cross examination he stated that by pressure on the neck he meant any force applied on the neck which results in prevention of the entry of the air into the lungs and leads to exphyxia. 15. The last witness examined by the prosecution is P.W. 22 P.S.I. Gundu Naik who has investigated the complaint originally registered by Head Constable Sawant, Buckle No. 511, as an offence of accidental death. He said that in this case a missing report was registered by P.W. 4 on 5.3.1992 at 16.00 hours. On 6.3.1992 one Dattaram came to the Police Station and informed that he had seen the dead body of a missing girl lying by the side of the road in the bushes leading from Ambirna to Socorro to Porvorim. On receipt of this information he rushed to the spot and drew the scene of offence panchanama. On 6.3.1992 one Dattaram came to the Police Station and informed that he had seen the dead body of a missing girl lying by the side of the road in the bushes leading from Ambirna to Socorro to Porvorim. On receipt of this information he rushed to the spot and drew the scene of offence panchanama. Thereafter further investigation was done during which the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased as well as the clothes were recovered. The accused was arrested from his native place at Kerala and some of the stolen properly was found in his possession and were recovered at his instance. 16. It is thus seen that there is no direct evidence against the accused regarding the commission of the offences of which the accused was charged and the whole exercise leading to his conviction and sentence appears to have been based essentially on circumstantial evidence. In this regard first of all there cannot be any dispute that the accused, at the time of the death of Sangeeta, was living in the deceased's mother's house as a tenant in one of the rooms of the house and their relations with both the deceased as well as with her mother and other members of the family were good although the accused during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses sought to make a feeble attempt to deny this fact. However in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he has clearly admitted and acknowledged that he was staying as a tenant in a room of the house belonging to Jayshri Redkar at Porvorim on monthly rent of Rs.100/- since four months prior to 4th March, 1992. Further if it is a fact that the panchanama of the discovery and alleged recovery of some gold ornaments, which were purported to belong to the deceased Sangeeta, from the accused's possession was not proved as per the law, and therefore cannot be held as a panchanama of recovery, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, however, the possession of at least the gold chain allegedly belonging to Sangeeta and which Sangeeta was wearing on the fateful night, when she left along with the accused from the house of her brother Anil to go to her mother's place, is to be deemed as proved. P.W. 1 Jayshri, P.W. 4 Annu and P.W. 8 Anil clearly speak about this gold chain which P.W. 1 Jayshri has purchased for Sangeeta and which she used to wear daily including on the night of 4.3.1992 when the accused came to the house of Anil at Socorro and after telling her that her mother was sick and had called her home she had left on that very night and both went together, by 9 O'Clock p.m., in order to go to Porvorim. In their deposition these witnesses also clearly refer to the gold chain and gave enough details to identify it as being the same M.O. 9 which was shown to them in -the Court. Further the-deposition of P.W. 18 Mani Acharya, who has deposed that the said M.O. 9 was the same gold chain which the accused sometime in the first fortnight of March, 1992, brought to his shop in two pieces for the purpose of repairing it, directly connects the said gold chain of the deceased with the accused and unmistakably proves that it was in his possession which however he was not able to explain. Therefore, even discarding the panchanama of recovery of the gold ornaments purportedly done at his instance in view of the deposition of the panch witness Mahadev and also because the said panchanama does not reflect the willingness of the accused to cause the discovery of the same ornaments, the available evidence on record is in our view more than sufficient to establish the direct link of the gold chain belonging to the deceased and which Sangeeta was wearing on the fateful night of her death with its unexplained possession by the accused. So far the motive of the offence, we are also satisfied that the alleged motive pleaded by the prosecution which was to rape Sangeeta and commit theft of her gold ornaments, find substantial proof on the evidence on record. In this regard the deposition of P.W. 16 Dr. P. Audi, who clearly refers to the injuries no. So far the motive of the offence, we are also satisfied that the alleged motive pleaded by the prosecution which was to rape Sangeeta and commit theft of her gold ornaments, find substantial proof on the evidence on record. In this regard the deposition of P.W. 16 Dr. P. Audi, who clearly refers to the injuries no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 which are depicted in the diagram attached to the post mortem report in the file of the trial Court, strongly points out to a clear offence of use of force and violence on the body of the deceased leading to the conclusion that there was definitely some attempt made on her by somebody in order to maintain forceful sexual intercourse with her. The location of the bruises on the inner side of her thighs on both her legs are a clear indication in this regard and by no manner the testimony of this witness was sought to be shakened or denied by the accused during his cross examination. With regard to theft of the gold ornaments of Sangeeta, apart from what was purportedly-recovered from his possession on the strength of the panchanama which we are not inclined to believe as a relevant piece of legal evidence in this case, the circumstance of P. W. 18 Mani having identified the gold chain of the deceased Sangeeta and stated that this was the same chain which the accused had brought to him broken in two pieces for the purpose of its repair, amounts also in our judgment to a substantial piece of evidence to establish a case of theft of that piece of ornament committed by the accused from the body of Sangeeta. Further there is also evidence pointing out to some love relationship between the accused and Sangeeta. This appears to be established at the very outset only by the evidence of P.W. 4 Annu and P.W. 8 Anil. Further the evidence of P.W. 19 Rashmi who is the mother' of the accused shows that the accused was in possession of a photograph of the deceased which photograph similar to the one marked Exh. P.W. 8/ A was shown by him to his mother on one occasion when accused went to Kerala to visit her. Further the evidence of P.W. 19 Rashmi who is the mother' of the accused shows that the accused was in possession of a photograph of the deceased which photograph similar to the one marked Exh. P.W. 8/ A was shown by him to his mother on one occasion when accused went to Kerala to visit her. There is also evidence to show that after the disappearance of Sangeeta subsequent to his having taken her away by the accused from the house of her brother Anil, purportedly for the purpose of accompanying him back from Socorro to Porvorim, the accused disappeared from the house of Jayshri where he was staying as a tenant and was not to be seen till the time of his arrest at Kerala after 20 days. To be seen that during that time the accused did not even bother to try and explain to the family members of Sangeeta about her whereabouts and instead chose to run away from the place without even giving any information in this regard. This action on the part of the accused is no doubt one of relevant circumstances pointing out to his deed in the whole incident. There appears to be also no dispute that the dead body of Sangeeta was traced by P.W. 6 Dattaram in the bushes on the way from Ambirna, Socorro to Porvorim with injuries which Dr. Audi has stated were the cause of her death by asphyxia. This testimony of Dr. Audi therefore proves that a case of unnatural death pointing out that the deceased was killed consequent upon throttling of her neck and which is reflected in the injuries no. 1 and 2 referred to by Dr. Audi in his post mortem report. Finally the most important circumstance which the prosecution has established against the accused is the fact that the accused was last seen along with the deceased on the fateful night of 4.3.1992. In this regard the evidence of P.W. 4 Annu and P.W. 8 Anil have not been at all disturbed or even shakened by the accused in cross-examination. Finally the most important circumstance which the prosecution has established against the accused is the fact that the accused was last seen along with the deceased on the fateful night of 4.3.1992. In this regard the evidence of P.W. 4 Annu and P.W. 8 Anil have not been at all disturbed or even shakened by the accused in cross-examination. The said evidence conclusively proves that after having visited Sangeeta on the previous day i.e. on 3.3.1992 during which he had a private talk with Sangeeta the accused came again to their house on 4.3.1992, at about 8.30 p.m., and stating that her mother was sick convinced her to come along with him on that very night. In this respect it is pertinent to refer to the un-controverted statement of P.W. 4 Annu who had said that finding somehow strange that her mother-in-law was said to be sick according to what the accused came to tell them at about 8.30 p.m. on that day because on that very day, by 5.30 p.m., she had been to her mother-in-law's place, Annu tried to persuade Sangeeta not to go at that late hour of the night along with the accused to Porvorim and advised her to go only on the next morning. At that time the accused called Sangeeta outside and talked to her privately for some time after which she came back and insisted with her brother and sister-in-law to accompany the accused on that very night, being therefore not prepared to listen to her brother and sister-in-law. The evidence of both Annu and Anil thus show that the accused left with Sangeeta by 9.30 p.m. after all had dinner together in the house and while leaving she was given a battery torch to help them to walk in the darkness. What happened subsequently is already mentioned and the fact is that after leaving the house as made known by the deposition of P.Ws. 4 and 8 Annu and Anil, Sangeeta was never again seen alive. What happened subsequently is already mentioned and the fact is that after leaving the house as made known by the deposition of P.Ws. 4 and 8 Annu and Anil, Sangeeta was never again seen alive. Neither the accused came to tell Anil or his wife about the disappearance of Sangeeta after she left along with him on that night nor the accused made her to reach safely to her mother's place which was the purpose for which he had been to Anil's house on that day in order to call her to Porvorim on the allegation that her mother was sick and had sent him to call her home. Instead the dead body of Sangeeta was found only on the third day in a highly decomposed state in the bushes along the way from their house from Porvorim to Socorro. This fact coupled with the disappearance of the accused from the house of Jayshri during early hours of 5.3.1992 after he allegedly returned to the house of her mother at about 10 p.m. sweating and in a nervous condition shows that the accused after commission of the offence went back to Sangeeta's mother's place at Porvorim and on the next day early morning ran away from the house and went to his native place at Kerala where he .was arrested. 17. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bhobe, learned Government Pleader, the accused was not able to give any explanation to the disappearance of Sangeeta after he purportedly left with her from the house of her brother. Mr. Bhodankar's submission that the evidence of all the witnesses cannot be relied because they are interested witnesses is not going to impress us not only because the testimony given by them was not shakened by the defence during cross-examination but also there was no reason for any of these witnesses to depose falsely and impute on the accused a crime which he had not committed. Therefore we refuse to accept me learned counsel's further contention that such evidence only creates a strong suspicion against the accused which suspicion cannot be deemed as legal and relevant in this case. Therefore we refuse to accept me learned counsel's further contention that such evidence only creates a strong suspicion against the accused which suspicion cannot be deemed as legal and relevant in this case. In our view all the circumstances which have been proved from a well knit chain whereof no links are missing unmistakably points out to the guilt of the accused in the commission of the offence for which he was charged while on the other side rules out any possibility of the crime having been committed by somebody else. 18. In the case of Sunderlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh3 while dealing with circumstantial evidence it has been held that when both the accused and deceased were seen together by the prosecution witnesses and after the murder the accused went to one goldsmith with the gold ornaments to offer to sell to him although he did not purchase the ornaments and the ornaments were established as belonging to the deceased while the accused was not able to give any satisfactory explanation as to how he came to be in its possession this would amount to circumstantial evidence which was sufficient to hold the accused responsible for the murder of the deceased. 19. In the case of Narayan Shankar Gaikwad and others v. The State of Maharashtra4, while dealing with section 302 I.P.C. in a case of conviction on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court held that although there were no eye-witnesses of the occurrence but the incriminating conduct and activities of the accused were proved by overwhelming evidence and the accused had not offered to explain them except by false denial and also no motive was suggested for so many prosecution witnesses, who had withstood the test of cross-examination, falsely implicating the accused, the accused was rightly convicted for. committing murder of the deceased. 20. In the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra5, which was also again dealing with circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court has laid down that, ordinarily, when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive in company of each other and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is to be considered a circumstance of an incriminating character. 21. 21. We are thus satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence made available by the prosecution is more than sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in the offences for which he was charged beyond any reasonable doubt. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the said evidence is enough to make us conclude that the offence of murder on Sangeeta was committed by the accused and by the accused alone and therefore the charge framed against him is to be held as proved. 22. In the result we see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment dated 23rd March, 1994 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mapusa is upheld. Appeal rejected. Appeal dismissed. 1. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1572. 2. A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 61. 3. A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 28. 4. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 675. 5. A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1949.