JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.: Ashok Kumar appellant, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", having been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, for an offence punishable under Section 302, of the Indian Penal code in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1997, vide his judgment dated May 1,1998, has filed the present appeal. The accused has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees 20,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, accused is to suffer further imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. Sant Ram, a resident of village Dhussara in Tehsii Amb of District Una, was posted as a Teacher at Government Primary School Baduhi is about 4 or 5 kms. from village Dhussara. shri Joginer Lai (PW9) was posted as Head Teacher of Govt. Primary School, Baduhi at the relevant time. On May 1,1997, he deputed Sant Ram to collect the salary of the Teachers of Primary School, Baduhi, Pallian and Panjora from the office of Block Primary Education Officer, Bangana (BPEO for short), for the month of April, 1997. Sant Ram collected Rupees 42,001/- being salary of Teachers from BEPO Bangana on the evening of May 2, 1997. The School at Baduhi by that time had closed and, therefore, he returned back to his house at village Dhussara. On the next morning, i.e.. May 3, 1997, Sant Ram left his house for his School at Baduhi at about 7.00 a.m. with the amount of salary. He did not reach the School. The dead body of Sant Ram, covered under the wheat straws, was spotted by Smt. Raksha Devi (PW3) in her field at about 5.00 p.m. She immediately informed Sardari Lal (PW2), President of Qiam Panchayat, Baduhi. Sardari Lal in turn tried to contact police on telephone. The telephone lines were out of order. So he left for Una on his Scooter to inform the Superintendent of Police. On his way to Una, he informed Anil Kumar (PW1), son of Sant Ram, about the spotting of the dead body of Sant Ram by Smt. Raksha Devi. Sardari Lal reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Una. A police team headed by Sub Inspector Khub Ram (PW22), came to the spot alongwith dog squad and photographer. On his way to Una, he informed Anil Kumar (PW1), son of Sant Ram, about the spotting of the dead body of Sant Ram by Smt. Raksha Devi. Sardari Lal reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Una. A police team headed by Sub Inspector Khub Ram (PW22), came to the spot alongwith dog squad and photographer. After inspecting the spot, Sub Inspector Khub Ram recorded the statement of Anil Kumar which forms basis for the First Information Report No. 47 of 1997 (Ext. PW1/A). The Investigating Officer after preparing the Inquest Report sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Dr. M.K. Pathak (PW13) conducted the post mortem of the dead body on May 4, 1997. The following injuries were noticed by Dr. Pathak as per his report Ext. PN: 1. There was an incised wound with sharpe clear margins measuring 10 cms x 6 cms. extending 5 cms. above the right pinna on right parietal region. It was extendig beyond midline. The underlying bones were fractured. The brain matter with meninges was vulging out of the wound. 2. There was an incised wound with sharp margins measuring 12 cms x 2 cms on the right parieto occipital region. The underlying bones were fractured. 3. There was an incised wound with sharp margins 8 cms. x 2 cms. on right temporal region. The underlying bones were fractured. 4. There was a clean lacerated wound on left fronto parietal area measuring 5 cms x 3 cms. The underlying bones were fractured and the brain matter had come out alongwith meninges. 5. There was a clean lacerated wound on left temporo maxillary area 6 cms. x 2 cms. The underlying bones were fractured. 6. A clean lacerated wound on right shoulder measuring 4 cms. x 2 cms. 7. There was a clean lacerated wound on posterior aspect of neck, measuring 8 cms. x 3 cms. The muscles, vessels, were crushed through and through. According to Dr. Pathak, Sant Ram died due to multiple fracture of the skull which led to haemorrhage, shock and death. 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Ashok Kumar killed deceased Sant Ram by inflicting fatal injuries with an axe. Accused Ashok Kumar was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Una, alongwith Rajesh Kumar for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Ashok Kumar killed deceased Sant Ram by inflicting fatal injuries with an axe. Accused Ashok Kumar was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Una, alongwith Rajesh Kumar for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Rajesh Kumar was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment for want of any tangible evidence against him. However, accused Ashok Kumar has been convicted as noticed earlier. 4. Aggrieved. This appeal by the accused. 5. We have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General. We have also re-appraised the evidence with the help of learned counsel for the appellant and State. 6. There is no direct evidence. The prosecution case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecutions rely and accused has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge are: (a) Accused was seen near about the place of occurrence around the time deceased Sant Ram met homicidal death; (b) Recovery of incriminating articles including weapon of offence at the instance of the accused; (c) Recovery of major part of the salary amount from the bag of accused which he left at the house of his close relative Balbir Singh. 7. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated because of enmity with Parkash Chand, former Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baduhi. 8. We are conscious that prosecution in order to secure conviction, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, must prove those circumstances with cogent and unipeachable evidence. It is now well settled that the following conditions must be proved before accused is convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence: (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It is now well settled that the following conditions must be proved before accused is convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (d) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (e) 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. (See .Sharad Bidhi Chand Sardeca v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 S.C. 1622.) 9. We may now examine the evidene on record to see whether the prosecution has been successful in establishing the circumstances relied upon by it and the circumstances so relied upon are consistent with the guilt of the accused. 10. We may, at this stage, notice that there is no dispute that Sant Ram met a homicidal death and his dead body was found in the field of one Kishan Chand, husband of Smt. Raksha Devi (PW2). There is also no dispute that death of Sant Ram occurred due to fatal injuries inflicted on his head. 11. (a) Accused was seen near about the place of occurrence around the time the deceased Sant Ram met with homicidal death. The fact that Sant Ram deceased was deputed by his Head Teacher Joginer Lal (PW9) to collect the salary of the Teachers of Primary Schools Baduhi, Pallian and Panjora is not disputed. Appearing as PW9, Joginder Lai states that he deputed deceased Sant Ram to collect the salary of the Teachers for the month of April, 1997, payable in May, 1997, by his authority letter Ext. PM. Jagdish Chand (PW11), Clerk of the office of BPEO Bangana, tells us that salary of Teachers of Schools at Baduhi, Pallian and Panjora is drawn in his office and such salary is disbursed through the School at Baduhi. PM. Jagdish Chand (PW11), Clerk of the office of BPEO Bangana, tells us that salary of Teachers of Schools at Baduhi, Pallian and Panjora is drawn in his office and such salary is disbursed through the School at Baduhi. It is his further evidence that salary of the Teachers of these Schools was drawn by him on May, 1,1997 and this salary amounting to rupees 42,001/- was handed over to Sant Ram deceased on authority letter of the Head Teacher Joginder Lal (PW9) on May 2, 1997 at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. The detail of the denomination of the currency notes handed over to the deceased Sant Ram is given in Ext PM/2. He clarifies in his cross-examination that one bundle containing 100 currency notes of the denomination of 100/-, six bundles of hundred notes each of denomination of rupees SO/- and twenty loose notes each of denomination of rupees 100/-, were handed over to the deceased Sant Ram. 12. It is proved from the evidence of Anil Kumar (PW1) son of deceased, Smt. Ram Piarai (PW4) widow of deceased that Sant Ram left his house at about 7.00 a.m. for his School at Baduhi. Sant Ram used to walk from his house to the School. It is the evidence of Ram Piarai that accused on that day. was carrying the salary of the Teachers in the bag (Ext. P. 13) which also contained his personal papers. According to Pyare Lal (PW5), a resident of village Panjora, that on the fateful day, he was on his way to the village well to take his bath at about 8.00 or 8.15 a.m., when he met deceased Sant Ram. It is his evidence that Sant Ram was alone and his father Wattan Chand joined him, who was also to go to the house of one Amarjit Singh at village Baduhi to work as labour. Amarjit Singh appearing as PW6 states that Wattan Chand was working as labourer in his house. On the fateful day, he saw deceased Sant Ram at about 8.00 or 8.15 a.m. passing by his house on foot. He was accompanied by Wattan Chand who had come to work as labourer in his house. Thereafter deceased went alone by the side of his house towards his School at Baduhi. It is his further evidence that decesed was carrying bag like Ext. P13 in his hand. He was accompanied by Wattan Chand who had come to work as labourer in his house. Thereafter deceased went alone by the side of his house towards his School at Baduhi. It is his further evidence that decesed was carrying bag like Ext. P13 in his hand. Prem Chand (PW7), a resident of village Baduhi, vends Bedis and Cigrettes etc., in a small shop at village Baduhi. It is the evidence of Prem Chand that he knew deceased Sant Ram and also knows accused Ashok Kumar. ON May 3,1997, at about 8.00 or 8.15 a.m., when he was brooming his shop, he saw the accused Ashok Kumar going towards the place where dead body of Sant Ram was later found. It is his evidence that house of accused Ashok Kumar is also located on that side. According to this witness, Ashok Kumar returned towards his shop after about 15 or 20 minutes. Thereafter, he again went towards that side (where dead body was later spotted) after fifteen minutes. He did not see Ashok Kumar thereafter. According to this witness, Sant Ram deceased used to walk daily by his shop to the School. It is his further evidence that he also saw the dead body of deceased Sant Ram in the field which is about 400 to 500 yds. from his shop. The dead body was covered under the wheat straws. There is nothing material in the cross- examination of this witness except, it is suggested to this witness that there was some row between him and father of accused Ashok kumar regarding some boundary. However, this suggestion is denied by the witness. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant impeaches the evidence of Prem Chand (PW7) on the ground that accused and his father had filed a complaint against Prem Chand and the staff of Settlement Department in the year 1991. He refers to compromise Ext., DA which shows that the matter was compromised between the concerned parties. The perusal of document Ex. DA shows that Prem Chand was not one of the persons against whom complaint was made. Ex. DD is copy of complaint filed by Mangat Ram and addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Una, "against Parkash Chand, the then Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baduhi. However, this complaint has nothing to do with Prem chand (PW7). Evidence of Prem Chand (PW7) thus is not impeachabie. Ex. DD is copy of complaint filed by Mangat Ram and addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Una, "against Parkash Chand, the then Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baduhi. However, this complaint has nothing to do with Prem chand (PW7). Evidence of Prem Chand (PW7) thus is not impeachabie. The evidence of Prem Chand (PW7) is corroborated by Savitri Devi (PW12). It is the evidence of Smt. Savitri Devi (PW12) that on May 3, 1997, she saw Ashok Kumar coming from the side of his old house when she was going to work in her field. After following her, accused went to his house where he used to live during those days. 14. It is thus established that accused was seen near about the place of occurrence at about 8.00 or 8.15 a.m. on the morning of May 3, 1997 around which time deceased was killed. 15. (b) Recovery of incriminating articles including (i) weapon of offence and (ii) Bag Ext. PI3 at the instance of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased was carrying rupees 42,001/- inhis bag Ext. PI 3 being salary of Teachers. The bag was found mising alogwith the money when dead body was found in the field of Parkash Chand at village Baduhi. Rupees 2028/- though were recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the deceased but that should be the personal Money of the deceased. It is the evidence of Smt. Ram Piari (P-W4), widow of deceased Sant Ram, that on the fateful day, deceased carried the salary of the Teachers in the bag Ext. PI 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that this bag was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ext. PH) made by accused Ashok Kumar. The statement is witnessed by Sardari Lal (PW2) and one Vijay Kumar. It is the evidence of Sardari Lal (PW2) that accused Ashok Kumar disclosed that the bag which was carried by deceased was thrown by him in a pit of Gobar Gas Plant at Village Baduhi. He also disclosed that axe has been kept by him in the old house at Baduhi. The statement of the accused is placed on the record as Ext. PH. 16. It is true that accused, in his disclousre statment Ext. He also disclosed that axe has been kept by him in the old house at Baduhi. The statement of the accused is placed on the record as Ext. PH. 16. It is true that accused, in his disclousre statment Ext. PH, has made inculpatroy statement admitting that he killed Shri Sant Ram but this part of the statement is inadmissible and cannot be read in evidence. However, the part of the statement that "he Had kept the axe in his store and threw the bag in the pit of Gobar Gas Plant and that he can get the axe and bag recovered", is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 17. It is the evidence of Sardari Lal (PW2) that accused led the Police party and witnesses Vijay Kumar, Rattan Chand including this witness, to his old house at village Baduhi. This old house had earlier been sealed by the Police. Lock of the house was opened. Ashok Kumar entered into the house followed by Tarsem Lai and Sardari Lal. Ashok Kumar took out the axe Ext. P10 and handed it over to Head Constable Tarsem Lai which was taken into possession by the Police and sealed in a packet. It is true that Tarsem Lal and Vijay Kumar have not been examined by the prosecution but PW Sardari Lal had stood the test of cross-examination and his evidence remains un-shaken. Non-examination of other witnesses therefore, is of no consequence. Such examination would only have been repetitive of evidence. In corss-examination, he admits that the old house from which axe was got recovered by the accused is used as store. However, he denies the suggestion that there are holes in the walls of the store from which anything can be pushed inside the store. 18. Learned counsel for the accused submits that there were holes in the walls and therefore axe could have been pushed inside the store house leading to its recovery from the house. The argument is misplaced and cannot be accepted. There is no evidence to show that there were holes in the wall of the house. The evidence of this witness remains un-shaken in the cross-examination. It is thus proved that axe Ext. P10 was discovered at the instance of the accused. Now Dr. The argument is misplaced and cannot be accepted. There is no evidence to show that there were holes in the wall of the house. The evidence of this witness remains un-shaken in the cross-examination. It is thus proved that axe Ext. P10 was discovered at the instance of the accused. Now Dr. M.K. Pathak (PW13) categorically states that the injuries found on the dead body of deceased Sant Ram could have been caused by axe Ext. P10. This part of the testimony is not disputed in the cross-examination. The prosecution thus has successfully established the recovery of the weapon of offence on the information supplied by the accused. 19. The other significant recovery at the instance of the accused is Bag (Ext.Pl 3) in which deceased carried the amount of salary. It is the evidence of Ram Piari (PW4) widow of deceased Sant Ram that she had accompanied the police party to village Baduhi and Bag Ext. PI 3 was recovered from the pit of Gobar Gas Plant. This recovery is not disputed in the cross-examination. She explains in the cross- examination that except few papers, there was nothing in the bag when recovered from the pit. The papers Exts., PW13/A to PW13/F found from this bag are undisputed!) the personal papers of deceased Sant Ram.Sardari Lal (PW 2) states that after the recovery of axe and clothes of the accused from his house, the police party went to the Gobar Gas Plant at village Baduhi and bag Ext.P13 was taken out from the pit by Ashok Kumar deceased. This was taken into possession by the Police vide memo Ext.P13, in which deceased Sant Ram had carried the salary, on the disclosure statement made by the accused, nails the accused with the killing of deceased Sant Ram. It is again emphasised that disclosure statement Ext.PH made by the accused is not seriously disputed either in the evidence of Sardari Lal or S.I. Khub Ram, Investigating Officer (PW 22). The only suggestion put to Sub Inspector Khub Ram is that signatures of accused Ashok Kumar were obtained after pressurising him. 20. We may notice that shirt Ext.Pl 1 and Pent Ext.P12, belonging to the accused, were also recovered, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused (Ext.PH), from his house. According to the report of the Chemical I Examiner, Ext. 20. We may notice that shirt Ext.Pl 1 and Pent Ext.P12, belonging to the accused, were also recovered, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused (Ext.PH), from his house. According to the report of the Chemical I Examiner, Ext. PT, blood stains were found both on the shirt and pent but the blood group could not be ascertained. We notice that Ext. PK, recovery memo of pent and shirt records that pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused Ext.PH, stripped pent of blue colour and a white blue coloured flowery shirt was taken into possesion from the house of the accused but the shirt examined by the Chemical Examiner was green and white. Similarly, pent examined by him was blue, black and pink stripped. Thus, the shirt and pent which were recovered from the house of the accused are not linked with the shirt and pent sent to the Examination Examiner and found to be blood stained. 21. In the circumstances, the recovery of pent and shirt on the disclosure statement made by the accused is of no assistance to the prosecution. 22. (c) Recovery of major part of the salary amount from the bag of accused which he left at the house of his close relative Balbir Singh. It is the case of the prosectuion that accused Ashok Kumar after committing the murder of Sant Ram, left his village and stayed at Lajjowal in Hoshiarpur District of Punjab, in the house of Balbir Singh (PW10), his close relative. Accused Ashok Kumar is married to the cousin of Balbir Singh. Police Party headed by Investigating Officer S.I. Khub Ram (PW22) went to the house of Balbir singh in search of the accused on May 6,1997 as is evident from the statement of Khub Ram (PW22). It is the evidence of Balbir Singh (PW10) that on May 4,1997, Ashok Kumar came to his house in his absence at about 4.00 p.m. Ashok Kumar left on the next morning leaving behind his bag. On May 6, 1997, when police came to his house, his wife informed the Police that accused had left a bag. This bag was opened by the police and found currency notes of rupees 38,00/- in the bag. Sarpanch of the village was called by his mother. On May 6, 1997, when police came to his house, his wife informed the Police that accused had left a bag. This bag was opened by the police and found currency notes of rupees 38,00/- in the bag. Sarpanch of the village was called by his mother. Recovery memo showing the contents of the bag which were take into possession by the Police was prepared which was signed by this witness. In addition to currency notes of rupees 38,000/-, the bag contained pent Ext. P6 and Shirt Ext. P7. In cross-examination, he admits that accused Ashok Kumar is his relative being son-in-law of his fathers elder brother. Now Balbir Singh being close relative of Ashok Kumar would not falsely implicate the accused. His testimony therefore assumes significance and lends assurance to the prosecution case that bag left by the accused in the house of this witness contained currency notes which were part of the salary carried by the deceased on the fateful day. The testimony of this witness is not disputed by the accused in his cross-examination. The perusal of recovery memo Ext. PG shows that apart from wearing appearls, one plastic envelope containing the notes of following denomination were recovered: (i) One packet of currency notes of 100 x 100= 10,000/- with paper seal of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd; (ii) One packet of currency notes of 50 x 100= Rs.5000/- sealed with paper seal of State Bank of India, Mehatpur (Una); (iii)One Packet of currency notes 50x100= Rs.5000/- with paper seal of State Bank of India, campus P.S. Indora; (iv)One packet of currency notes of 50 x 100=Rs.5000/- rupees with paper seal of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Una. (v) One packet of currency notes of 50 x 100=Rs.5000/- with paper seal of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Una, H.P. (vi) One packet of currency notes of 50 x 100= Rs.5000/- with paper seal of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Una, and (vii) One open packet of 60 notes of Rs.50 denomination (50 x 60 = 3000). 23. Now as noticed earlier, it is the evidence of Jagdish Chand (PW11), Clerk in the office of BPEO Bangana that he had detailed the amount, handed over to the deceased as salary, in the Register copies whereof are ExtPM/1 and PM/2. Ext.PM/1 and PM/2 details the amount which was disbursed as salary to the various Schools. Perusal of Ext. 23. Now as noticed earlier, it is the evidence of Jagdish Chand (PW11), Clerk in the office of BPEO Bangana that he had detailed the amount, handed over to the deceased as salary, in the Register copies whereof are ExtPM/1 and PM/2. Ext.PM/1 and PM/2 details the amount which was disbursed as salary to the various Schools. Perusal of Ext. PM/2 shows that 120 currecny notes of the denomination of rupees 100/- amounting to rupees 12,000/- and 600 currency notes of denomination of rupees 50/-, total rupees 30,000/-, twenty loose notes of the denomination of hundred rupees, total Rs.2000/- and one single coin of rupees 1/-, in all rupees 42,001/- were handed over to the deceased as salary. 24. The amount recovered from the bag of the accused detailed in recovery memo Ext. PG correspond to the currency notes which were handed over to the deceased by Jagdish Chand (PW11) on account of the salary of the Teachers as detailed in Ext. PM/2. Accused has not been able to explain the recovery of rupees 38,000/- from his bag which he left in the house of PW10 Balbir singh the very next day of the killing of Sant Ram. This is a strong circumstance which unerringly points to the guilt of the accused. The circumstance excludes any hypothesis of his innocence. 25. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, to be fair to hint, pointed to certain contradictions in the statement of various prosecution witnesses. He refers to the testimony of Sardari Lal (PW2) wherein he states that the dead body was noticed by him at about 4.30 p.m., whereas, Raksha Devi (PW3), who was first to spot the dead body, states that she found the dead body at about 5.30 p.m. There appears to be a typographical mistake. We have perused the hindi version of the testimony of Sardari Lal (PW2). In this original statement in Hindi, it is recorded that he saw the dead body at 5.30 p.m. and thereafter he tried to contact Police Station, Bangana on phone but the lines were out of order and therefore he left for Una on a Scooter. On his way he stopped at Dhussara to inform Anil Kumar, son of deceased Sant Ram, about the incident, thus, there is no contradiction. 26. On his way he stopped at Dhussara to inform Anil Kumar, son of deceased Sant Ram, about the incident, thus, there is no contradiction. 26. Learned counsel then points out that Sardari Lal (PW2) in his evidence states that Balbir Singh (PW10) told Head Constable Tarsem Lai and S.I. Khub Ram that Ashok Kumar stayed in his house only for one night. He arived at 4.00 p.m. and left in the morning of next day. It is true that PW2 Sardari Lal in his statement states that Balbir Singh told Head constable Tarsem Lal and A.S.I. Balbir Singh in his presence that he stayed in his house for three days (two days according to hindi version which would be taken to be correct). It is also true that Balbir Singh informed the Police that Ashok Kumar stayed in his house only for one night having come the previous evening. Such contradictions are bound to occur with the passage of time and does not militate against the substance of the prosecution version as given by the witnesses. 27. Learned counsel also points out that Balbir singh in his testimoney states that he was not present when accused Ashok Kumar arrived in his house and, therefore, evidence of Balbir Singh cannot be relied upon. The argument is to be noticed to be rejectd. Balbir Singh categorically states that when Police arrived in his house to enquire about Ashok Kumar, it was his wife who told the Police that bag hanging on the peg of the wall belongs to the accused and the same was left by him. It is also to be noticed that this part of the testimony is not disputed by the accused in the cross examination of Balbir Singh. The testimony of Balbir singh cannot be discarrded for the reason that he was not present when accused arrived in his house. 28. Learned counsel for the accused has taken us through a portion of the testimony of Ram Piari (PW4) wife of deceased Sant Ram where she states that she was informed about the death of her husband by Sardari Lal (PW2) at 4.00 p.m. The contention is that if Raksha Devi noticed the dead body of deceased Sant Ram in her fields at S.30 p.m., Sardari Lal could not have informed Ram Piari at 4.00 p.m. Firstly, Sardari Lal did not inform Ram Piari directly. He only informed Anil Kumar son of Ram Piari. Secondly, rustic woman cannot be expected to keep exact time by minutes. In any event, as pointed out earlier, this is not material contradiction to discard the testimony of this witness. 29. Learned counsel for the accused raises doubt regarding the recovery of the bag from the pit of Gobar Gas Plant. He submits that according to the evidence of Ram Piari, the documents in the bag were drenched in water, whereas, the document so recovered Exts. PW13/A to PW13/F were not in any manner spoiled. We have seen the documents. The documents apparently appear to have been effected by water. There is no substance in the submission. 30. Lastly, learned counsel for the accused submits that the case has not been properly investigaged as deceased was last seen alive in the company of Wattan Chand between 8.00 a.m. to 8.15 a.m., as admitted by Pyare Lal (PW5). Therefore, the possibility of Wattan Chand having killed deceased Sant Ram cannot be ruled out. Amarjit Singh (PW6) categorically states that Wattan Chand had accompanied the deceased upto his house and thereafter deceased went alone towards his School. Shri Ramakant Sharma then submits that prosecution has not explained the delay in the arrest of the accused from May 6,1997 when Police went to the house of Balbir Singh where accused had stayed on the night of May 4,1997, till he was arrested. It is apparent from the evidence of Investigating Officer S.I. Khub Ram (PW22) that the accused was absconding from May 3,1997 onwards and could only be arrested on May 14,1997 at Jullundur from the shop of his father-in- law Mohan Singh. We do not find any ambiguity. 31. We hardly need to emphasise that minor contradictions with the passage of time, are bound to occur, moreso, in case of evidence of rustic villagers. Such contradictions so long the substratum of evidence remain intact, would not render the evidence of the witnesses unreliable. 32. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is obliged to prove each of the circumstance, having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Such contradictions so long the substratum of evidence remain intact, would not render the evidence of the witnesses unreliable. 32. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is obliged to prove each of the circumstance, having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Each of the circumstance by itself may not be conclusive but the cumulative effect of proved circumstances must point to the guilt of the accused excluding any other hypothesis (See: C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala, 2000(1) Supreme Court Cases 225. 33. In the present case, the prosecution has established the following incriminating circumstances, beyond any reasonable doubt, against the accused: (a) Accused was seen near about the place of occurrence around the time deceased Sant Ram met homicidal death; (b) Recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused: (i) Weapon of offence; (ii)Bag of the deceased in which the pay of the Teachers was carried which also contained personal papers of the deceased; (c) Recovery of major part of the salary amount from the bag of the accused which he had left at the house of his close relative Balbir singh. All of these circumstances are fully established. The circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and excludes any explanation of his innocence. 34. The inevitable conclusion is that in all human probability, it was accused and accused alone who committed the murder of deceased Sant Ram. 35. No other point is urged before us. 36. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The case property shall be dealt with in accordance with the orders of learned trial Court. Appeal dismissed