Honble MADAN, J.–This appeal arises out of judgment dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, by which he has convicted accused appellant for offences u/S. 302 and 392, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3000/-(in default thereof, further six months RI) on first count, and four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 6, 000/-(in default thereof, further six month RI) on second count. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The facts relevant for deciding this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 13.8.1994 at about 12.05 P.M. telephonic intimation was received at Police Station Bagru (Jaipur) to the effect that a dead body of lady was lying in maize (Bajra) crop field of one Umrao Singh. Upon such intimation, Bhuraram (ASI) alongwith Radhey Shyam (HC) & Bhuraram (FC) proceeded to the spot and the Station House Officer was intimated through wireless. After arrival of the police party at the sport, Nandaram Sharma gave a written report (Ex. P.3) to the SHO Bagru. In written report (Ex. P.3), Nandaram alleged that he used to work as Labour at the agricultural farm of Lodha Saheb and was resident of Dhani Bagwali Bagru Khurd; that in the morning while he was working at the farm then at about 9 Oclock Bhagirath Singh (accused appellant) came to him and told that Bhabhi (wife of Nandaram) would not be bringing his meals because he (Bhagirath Singh) had told her not to bring meal; that after an hour, his wife (Nandarams) reached with his meal then Bhagirath Singh left for Dhani; that thereafter his wife served him meal and after taking food, she left alongwith meals utensils towards Dhani, but after some time, Ladu came and told that Bhabhi (Nandas wife) was killed in the field of Thakur, whereupon he rushed to the spot then his aunt Kanidevi gave out that near the place where Savitri (his wife) was killed, she (Kani Devi) has seen Bhagirath Singh sitting at the ``Khejri tree while Savitri was lying dead soaked with blood having injuries and wounds at her neck wherefrom the blood was oozing out; and that gold chain (Jolya) & ear-rings which his wife was wearing were not found on her dead body. In the written report, it has also been alleged that he named Bhagirath Singh (accused appellant) as suspect for having committed murder of his wife Savitri. This written report was sent to the police station for lodging and registering the crime. (3). Upon receipt of written report (Ex. P.3). submitted by complainant Nandaram at the spot to Shishupal Singh SHO PS Bagru, which was then sent through Ram Singh Constable No. 736. Crime No. 326/94 was registered at 1.30 PM on 13.8.94 at PS Bagru for offences u/S. 302 and 394 IPC against Bhagirath Singh (accused-appellant). During investigation at the spot, site plan (Ex. P.5) was prepared; one ``Hawai Chappal (Art. 7) vide Ex. P. 6, apparels of the deceased vide Ex. P.9, blood smeared and plain soil vide Ex P. 8, one ``chappal of the accused vide Ex. P.15 were seized by Shishupal Singh (PW17) SHO who also prepared inquest report (Ex.P.7) of the deceased in the presence of motbir witnesses. Autopsy of Savitri (deceased) was got conducted on 13.8.94 at 5 PM at the site of the incident itself vide Ex. P.31. (4). Bhagirath Singh was arrested on 15.8.94 vide Ex. P.1 by Shishupal Singh (PW17). Apparels like Bushirt and pant having been worn by Bhagirath Singh at the time of his arrest which were having blood stains vide (Ex. 2) and his worn Chappal pair vide Ex. P. 16 were also recovered. On the information and at the instance of Bhagirath Singh, site plan of the place of incident was also prepared vide Ex. P. 14 on 16.8.94, when he volunteered an information under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex. P.24 to get recovered his left Chappal (Art. 13) which was recovered vide (Ex. P.1) with its site plan (Ex.P.18). Similarly, upon information (Ex.P.22) volunteered by the accused his ``lungi was recovered vide Ex.P.23 on 16.8.94. Other Chappal of Savitri (deceased) was recovered from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P.25. On 17.8.94 Bhagirath Singh volunteered information (Ex.P.19) to get recovered gold ear-ring whereupon gold ear-ring was recovered at his instance on 17.8.94 vide Ex. P.12. Upon having volunteered information Ex. P.21, Bhagirath Singh also got gold Jholya of deceased (Jantar) recovered on 17.8.94 vide Ex.P.10. Weapon of offence viz. knife was also got recovered by Bhagirath Singh vide Ex. P.13 on 17.8.94 at his instance and upon having volunteered information Ex. P.20. P.12. Upon having volunteered information Ex. P.21, Bhagirath Singh also got gold Jholya of deceased (Jantar) recovered on 17.8.94 vide Ex.P.10. Weapon of offence viz. knife was also got recovered by Bhagirath Singh vide Ex. P.13 on 17.8.94 at his instance and upon having volunteered information Ex. P.20. All recovered and seized articles like Soil, apparels of deceased and accused beside knife during investigation having blood stains were sent for Serological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory in a sealed cover. Forensic Science Laboratory sent its report dated Ex. P.36. (5). After completion of investigation, challan was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jaipur District who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. However, the learned Sessions Judge charged he accused appellant for offences punishable under Sec. 302 and 392, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses and produced documents Ex. P.1 to 37. The accused was examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the circumstances alleged for commission of offence against him and in his explanation he denied to have beaten/killed the deceased and further denied to have volunteered any information as well as recovery and seizure of any of the articles including the knife alleged to have been made at his instance. Thus, Bhagirath Singh denied to have any connection as to any recovered and seized articles during investigation. However, he did not produce any witness or document in his defence. After trial and hearing the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced Bhagirath Singh u/S. 302 & 392 IPC as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. (6). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor at length. Having carefully considered the relevant record as referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments, at the threshold and before dealing with contentions raised at the bar, we may state resume of reports of autopsy and forensic science laboratory thus. (7). As per autopsy report Ex. P.31, following external injuries were found on the body of deceased Savitri at the time of her autopsy which was conducted on 13.8.94 at 5 P.M. - 1. Incised punctured wound -2.5 x 1.5 cm size, neck tissue deep 4.0 cm medial & downward to angle of mandible transyersely placed at anterio lateral aspect of Rt side neck. P.31, following external injuries were found on the body of deceased Savitri at the time of her autopsy which was conducted on 13.8.94 at 5 P.M. - 1. Incised punctured wound -2.5 x 1.5 cm size, neck tissue deep 4.0 cm medial & downward to angle of mandible transyersely placed at anterio lateral aspect of Rt side neck. On dissection, the ribbon muscles of the neck, external juglar vein, carotid vessels, internal jugular vein and associated other blood vessels and nerves have found cleanly cut apart. The wound is further extending just lateral to trachea and oesophagus and vertebral column, which are surrounded by massive antemortem haematoma. 2. Incised punctured wounds 1.5 x 0.6 cm and 0.7 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood, transversely placed on the anterio lateral aspect of right side neck which has medial to injury No. 1. 3. Incised punctured wounds -0.7 x 0.3 cm, 0.5 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood placed vertically on the right side neck just lateral and below the injury No.1. 4. Incised punctured wound 0.5 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood vertically placed on the right parolid region. 5. Abrasions 0.6 x 0.3 cm, 0.8 x 0.1 cm, 0.2 x 0.2 cm, 3 x 0.8 cm on the right side neck just lateral to midline. 6. Incised wound 0.8 x 0.3 cm, 0.5 x 0.2 cm, x sub cut tissue deep with blood clots present on the midline of the neck on the thyroid cartilage. 7. Abrasions 2.5 x 1.0 cm on the midline of the neck just below the injury No. 6. 8. Incised punctured wound 3.0 x 1.5 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood placed transversely 3.5 cm below and medial to angle of mandible on the anterio lateral aspect of lef side neck. 9. Incised wound 0.5 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood placed transversely on the left infro clavicular region on the anterio part of the chest. 10. Incised wound 0.5 x 0.3 cm, 0.5 x 0.2 cm, 0.3 x 0.2 cm x subsubvert tissue deep with clotted blood placed vertically on the left pectoral region of the chest. (8). All the above injuries were ante mortem in nature and as per report, duration of death was within the period of 12-18 hours from the time of post mortem examination. Dr. (8). All the above injuries were ante mortem in nature and as per report, duration of death was within the period of 12-18 hours from the time of post mortem examination. Dr. Mukesh Agrawal (PW 26) opined that the deceased died as a result of haemorrhage, hypovalacemic shock which was brought about as a result of ante mortem injury to soft tissue of the neck (major blood vessels of the neck as described in injury No.1). This was opined as sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. (9). FSL report dated 22.8.96 stated that seven sealed packets were received for serological examination and upon its examination the blood stains were found to be of human origin on followings- Exhibit No. 1 (From packet A blood smeared soil), Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, 5 (From packet C-lugari, ghaghra, blouse), Exhibit No. 6 (From packet E-chappal right), Exhibit No. 7 & 8 (From packet F-Bushirt), Exhibit No. 9 (From packet H-lungi), Exhibit No. 10 (From packet J-chaku). (10). The Serologist found the blood stains disintegrated on all the items and obviously therefore, blood group was not detected but undoubtedly human blood was found as per Serologist Report (Ex.P.35) which is a sufficient circumstance in the chain of events to connect the accused with the culpability alleged against him particularly when prosecutions allegation as one of link circumstance against him was that he was seen with blood stains on his hands, legs and apparels while he was going across field of Ramnarain and his apparels were recovered by the police during investigation as stated above. So we find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the serologist report did not state blood group and hence report (Ex.P. 36) cannot be relied upon and admissible in evidence to connect the accused as one of links in the circumstantial evidence. (11). Therefore, the prosecution through evidence of Dr. Mukesh Agrawal (PW 26) and post mortem report (Ex.P. 31) has established that Savitri (deceased) died a homicidal death due to the injuries caused to her by sharp cutting weapons i.e. the knife recovered from the accused appellant as stated by the prosecution witnesses. (12). (11). Therefore, the prosecution through evidence of Dr. Mukesh Agrawal (PW 26) and post mortem report (Ex.P. 31) has established that Savitri (deceased) died a homicidal death due to the injuries caused to her by sharp cutting weapons i.e. the knife recovered from the accused appellant as stated by the prosecution witnesses. (12). However, assailing findings of the learned trial Court for the impugned conviction of the accused appellant on both the counts, Shri Samandra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vociforcely contended that no doubt there is no eye witness to the murder or looting of gold ornaments of Savitri deceased, therefore, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which has not been carefully examined by the learned trial Court particularly on some peripheral issues whereas combination of facts, on which impugned conviction is based by the trial Court, create a net without there being any tear through which the accused can escape. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a case of mistaken identity and false implication of the accused appellant and therefore Shri Singh contended that identity of the accused is totally doubtful for the reason that written report on the basis of which F.I.R. by husband of deceased was lodged, does not specifically contain description as to the identity of the accused, and if Bhagirath was the culprit then there was no justification for him to have personally gone and informed Nandaram (PW 3) husband of Savitri that his wife would not come to his farm to bring meal. This contention of the learned counsel is not at all sustainable firstly because it is well settled law that written complaint should not necessarily contain description of all events of commission of offence or perpetrator when it is a case of circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as in the present case the informant (PW 3) in his first information report (Ex. This contention of the learned counsel is not at all sustainable firstly because it is well settled law that written complaint should not necessarily contain description of all events of commission of offence or perpetrator when it is a case of circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as in the present case the informant (PW 3) in his first information report (Ex. P.3) in the shape/form of written complaint submitted at the spot where the dead body of his wife Savitri (deceased) was lying/ found in the millet crop field that too of Umrao Singh father of the accused himself, specifically alleged that at first instance Bhagirath Singh came to him at about 9 Oclock in the morning informing that his wife would not be coming with meal while after an hour of his saying so, his wife brought his meal and served him meal and then went towards Dhani where after Ladu came with bad news that his wife had been killed in the field of Umrao Singh, where dead body of Savitri was lying and upon his arrival to Thakurs field, he was informed by his aunt Kanidevi (PW 9) that near the place where Savitri was killed, Bhagirath Singh was sitting at the Khejri tree. (13). This part of prosecution story unfolded in written complaint (Ex. P.3) by Nanda (PW 3) containing description and identity as well as the accused Bhagirath Singh having been last seen near the place of incident, i.e. Khejri tree, and prior to it, to the place, where Nanda (PW 3) was working, has consistently been established by corroborative statements of Nanda (PW 3), Ladu (PW 7) and Smt. Kani (PW 9). Moreover, accused appellant in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to Question No. 4 denied to have gone to Nanda by saying ``wrong to the version of Nanda (PW 3) given out in his statement which is quite and totally different version to the defence pleaded by his counsel before this Court for the first time to the effect that had he been culprit, he would not have gone to Nanda husband of Savitri before her death so as to inform as to Savitris not bringing meal, as was being disclosed by Nanda (PW 3) in his first information report (Ex. P. 3). That apart, written report (Ex. P. 3). That apart, written report (Ex. P.3) specifically described Bhagirath Singh as assailant/murderer of Savitri (deceased) on the basis of facts stated and informed by Ladu (PW 7) and Kani (PW 9). (14). Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that time of death of deceased as stated in F.I.R. as well as autopsy report is not consistent with doctors statement as it did not coincide each others, wherein doctor deposed that rigor mortis in rainy season could complete within 8 to 10 hours whereas duration of death in autopsy report and doctors statement is said to be within 12-18 hours from the time of autopsy. We are of the opinion that such a contention has also no foundation if we carefully scan cross examination put to the doctor by defence counsel during trial. In cross examination, Dr. Agrawal (PW 26) specifically stated that autopsy of Savitri was commenced at 5 P.M. on 13.8.94 and two hours were taken to complete it, which means upto 7 P.M. autopsy was completed and he specifically stated upon cross examination that duration of death was not less than four hours and not more than 18 hours of time of post mortem examination. If time is calculated from 5 or 7 P.M. i.e. time of autopsy conducted on the person of Savitri, and rigor mortis as per doctors version having commenced within 8 -10 hours, is taken into consideration, then death can be held to have taken place atleast prior to 12 noon on 13.8.1994 and not thereafter. Thus, we find no incongruity in autopsy report and doctors statement (PW 26) as to the time or duration of death of deceased as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to discard one of important links in the chain of circumstantial events for determining the culpability of accused. (15). Next contention on behalf of the appellant is than neither allegedly looted articles like ``gold Jolya & ear-ring of deceased Savitri nor any injury near ear of the deceased were mentioned in the inquest report (Ex. P.7), thereby it creats doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt. (15). Next contention on behalf of the appellant is than neither allegedly looted articles like ``gold Jolya & ear-ring of deceased Savitri nor any injury near ear of the deceased were mentioned in the inquest report (Ex. P.7), thereby it creats doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt. Again, in our considered view, in this regard such a contention does also not render any help to the appellant to throw entire prosecution case out of the board especially when other circumstantial evidence on which the trial Court has placed reliance for recording conviction against appellant is unerringly attributing to the guilt to him. As per Sec. 174 Cr.P.C., object of inquest is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and, if so what is the apparent cause. In an inquest, all the witnesses or the description of events disclosed in F.I.R. or found during inquiry or investigation need not be either examined or stated as an inquest U/s 174 Cr.P.C. is prepared so as to establish cause of death for which only description of such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and condition thereof stating in what manner such marks appear to have been inflicted, and only evidence necessary to establish injury etc. causing death of deceased need be brought out in inquest report, as laid down in Shakila Khader vs. Nausher Gama (1). (16). In the present case, the inquest report (Ex.P. 7) specifically describes marks of three wounds -cut on right side of neck, one big wound -cut on left side of neck besides bruises and ligature marks near neck. It has also been described that there have been four cut injuries near left shoulder and one cut injury between right eye and ear. Thus, it is wrong to contend that no injury in the ear of the deceased has been described in the inquest report. It has also been described that there have been four cut injuries near left shoulder and one cut injury between right eye and ear. Thus, it is wrong to contend that no injury in the ear of the deceased has been described in the inquest report. As regards allegedly looted gold articles being not described in inquest report, it need not be required to be described or examined u/S. 174 Cr.P.C. for establishing the cause of death and for inquest, the police has to draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner such marks found on the body of deceased appear to have been inflicted. (17). Learned counsel for the accused appellant also contended that to prove circumstances against the accused, statements of Ramnarain (PW 1) and Bhagwan Sahai (PW 2) have been relied upon but surprisingly enough their names are not mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ex. P.3) at the earliest point of time and therefore, this raises and established to reasonably infer that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution, inasmuch as while the dead body was found lying in an agricultural field alleging that incident took place in a lime light day at about 11.30 A.M. but again no independent witnesses from adjoining fields were produced by the prosecution except those either who are related or are interested witnesses so benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case proved on record, we are not at all impressed upon the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for manifold reasons. Firstly it is a case of circumstantial evidence where it is not necessary that each of circumstances by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. Moreover, F.I.R. is a well known technical description of a report U/S 154 Cr.P.C. giving first information of a cognizable crime and it is an information first in point of time with its object to obtain early information of the alleged criminal activity to record the circumstances and with the object of putting the police machinery in motion in order to investigate the case. Hence it is neither customary nor necessary to mention every minute detail in the F.I.R. Merely because names of two of the prosecution witnesses did not find place in the F.I.R. in our considered view, no benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused appellant nor their evidence unless otherwise inadmissible can be discarded so as to sustain impugned conviction which stands based on and proved on other circumstantial evidence. The conditions of an F.I.R. are two fold: (1) it must be an information shorn of manifest details and (ii) it must relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and not merely in the light subsequent event. (18). Merely because witnesses are related would not by itself be sufficient to discredit their testimony. Undoubtedly present one is a case of circumstantial nature where these two witnesses produced by the prosecution though not named in the F.I.R. and related to the first informant but their presence near or at the spot and before it for having seen the accused appellant drenched in blood at his body and clothes, was natural. In cross examination no questions have been put to these witnesses to discredit their presence or to disbelieve their presence nearby Umrao Singhs field whereas their presence nearby spot was quite natural and probable for the reason of their having been working as labour where they had seen accused having gone duly drenched with blood on his body and clothes. When they saw the accused appellant duly stained with blood on his body and clothes etc., they were not aware of the murder of Savitri w/o Nanda, and hence they could not have apprehended the accused. It was only upon having heard commotion from the side of other fields that they rushed to the field of Umrao Singh where they found dead body of Savitri duly drenched with blood sustaining injuries and wounds on her body. So, in these circumstances, non-mention of their names in the F.I.R./written complaint would not make any defference and is not at all fatal to the prosecution rather they are most natural and probable witnesses to the incident as found to the incident by the police after the report had been lodged at the spot. Hence on this count as well, their testimony cannot be discarded from taking into consideration the circumstances proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. (19). Hence on this count as well, their testimony cannot be discarded from taking into consideration the circumstances proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. (19). Now we must have a look at the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial court impugned in this appeal. The learned trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to produce direct and ocular evidence to prove the charge of causing death and looting the deceased against the accused appellant and whatever the evidence led on record by the prosecution is of circumstantial nature. The learned trial court based the impugned conviction of accused appellants for offences u/S. 302 and 392, IPC upon the circumstantial evidence which has been held to be proved on record by the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court recorded the chain of events of two fold facts. One of circumstances brought in evidence is that after the incident, the accused appellant was seen near the place of occurrence when his hand and clothes were drenched in blood and this first circumstance has been held to be proved by Bhagwan Sahai (PW 2) and Ram Sahai (PW 6) in their statements. Similarly next circumstance stated is that near the place of occurrence the accused appellant was seen by Smt. Kani (PW 9) having been sitting on the Khejri tree and whereafter Ramnarain (PW 1) had also seen accused appellant passing through his field and at that time also, accused appellant had blood smeared hand, leg and clothes besides wearing slipper only in foot (I.e. one chappel). The accused appellant was also seen by Bheruram (PW 4) and Lalluram (PW 5) wearing slipper (one chappel) only in a foot. Nandaram (PW 3) husband of deceased Savitri who lodged written report (Ex. P3) at the spot on the information given to him by Laduram (PW 7) about death and dead body of his wife Savitri lying on the field of Umrao Singh, has also been produced by the prosecution to prove circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. (20). The question arises is whether circumstances thus found proved by the learned trial court are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence and those circumstances brought on record and discussed by the trial court can rightly be held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. (21). (20). The question arises is whether circumstances thus found proved by the learned trial court are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence and those circumstances brought on record and discussed by the trial court can rightly be held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. (21). With a view to examine and carefully consider impugned findings of conviction, let us have an independent look at the statements of the prosecution witnesses on which the learned trial court based its conclusions. (22). Ramnarain (PW1) inter-alia stated that on 13.8.94 at about 11.30 A.M. when he was digging fodder in his field situated leaving two roads to the field of Umrao Singh towards southern side then suddenly he heard hue and cry from the side of Dhani where he saw Bhagirath Singh coming from his field towards him (PW 1) hurriedly and at that time he had blood stains on his hand, feet and clothes besides wearing slipper only in a foot with another bare foot, whereupon he asked him (accused) as to what was the reason for his moving hurriedly, then he only looked at him without any reply. He also stated that whereafter while at his Dhani, children told him of somebody making commotion in the Thakurs field so he went to Umrao Singhs field where he found people assembled and he was given out by Bhagwan Sahai and Ramsahai that Nandas wife Savitri was killed by Bhagirath Singh. (23). He also stated that whereafter while at his Dhani, children told him of somebody making commotion in the Thakurs field so he went to Umrao Singhs field where he found people assembled and he was given out by Bhagwan Sahai and Ramsahai that Nandas wife Savitri was killed by Bhagirath Singh. (23). Bhagwan Sahai (PW 2) stated that his nephew Nandaram (PW 3) used to work as labour in the farm of Lodha Sahib; that on 13.8.94, Nandas wife Savitri had gone to Nanda in the field to get meal served to him and after serving meal to her husband (Nanda), she had left for her house but in the way at the millet field, Umrao Singhs son Bhagirath Singh killed her, whereafter upon hearing hue and cry made by the children, he went to the field of Umrao Singh then Bhagirath Singh was seen coming out of his millet field and at that time, his hands were drenched in blood apart from clothes and he was having knife in his hand duly soaked with blood and upon seeing them, he (accused) went back inside the millet field, whereupon they chased him but could not catch hold of him and he escaped himself. This witness has not only proved the arrest of the accused, seizure of clothes of the accused made in his presence vide Ex. P1 and P2. but has also stated that Savitri was killed by accused Bhagirath Singh. (24). Nanda (PW 3) inter alia stated that the incident is of 13th day of Shrawan month when he was working as Chowkidar/Labour in the field of Lodha Sahib, Bhagirath Singh came to him at about 9 A.M. and informed of his wife not bringing his meal and then the (accused) returned back to his Dhani but after some time, his wife (deceased-Savitri) came bringing his meal, which was served by her to him and after taking his meal, while she was returning to her Dhani, thereafter his neighbour Ladu came to him and informed of his wife having been killed in Umrao Singhs field, immediately whereupon he rushed to Umraos field where his aunt Smt. Kani (PW 9) met him giving out that Bhagirath Singh had killed Savitri and had seen him climbed down the Khejri tree. He also stated that he went near dead body of his wife Savitri whom he found drenched in full of blood besides sustained a lot of grievous injuries on her person inasmuch as her gold `Jolya (chain/neckbend) and ear-rings were found missing on her body. He stated that his wifes clothes (lugri) etc. were also drenched in blood which was oozing out of sustained injuries. He proved written report (Ex.P3) lodged by him identification memoes of gold `Jolya and ear-ring recovered and seized from the accused, besides site plan inquest report, recovery memo of one slipper (chappel) recovered from the place of dead body, which are said to have been prepared by the police in his presence. (25). Bheruram (PW 4) inter-alia stated that on 13.8.94 though his duty was from 2 OClock but he was going to Marble Factory at about 12-1 OClock and in the way he saw Bhagirath Singh coming from millet field and going towards well of Kalyan Dagre for Bamboria in hurriedly manner and at that time he asked him as to where was he going, to which he told him for going to duty as at that time, he (accused) told about murder of Nandas wife in his own field of millet crop but he would not be going to her funeral, whereupon he was asked to stop but he rushed hurriedly and went away forthwith without answering to his requests. He also stated that at that time accused was wearing blue pant and slipper (Chappal) only in a foot with another being bare. He then stated that he also went towards Umraos field where dead body of Savitri was lying duly drenched in blood and sustaining injuries on her body especially at the necks both sides and at the spot, the people assembled were telling that Savitri was having been killed by Bhagirath Singh. (26). Lalluram (PW 5) inter alia stated that on 13.8.94 of incident day he was fetching fodder from his field passing through a Kutcha way (path) in between Bagru Khurd and Bamboria where he saw accused Bhagirath Singh coming in the way and he was informing Bherulal (PW4) of Dhangra Ke Dhani as to whether he would be going in funeral to which he (witness) also asked accused as to what happened, whereupon accused gave out that in his field of millet crop, Nandrams wife Savitri had been killed. He also stated that at that time, accused was wearing pant and vest (Banian) with only one slipper in his foot and his bushirt was on his shoulder. Thereafter, keeping fodder in his Bagawali Dhani, he went to the field of Umraosingh where people were gathering and telling that Nandrams wife Savitri was killed by Bhagirath Singh and whereafter he saw Savitri lying dead in millet field of Umrao Singh duly soaked with blood. (27). Ram Sahai (PW6) inter alia stated that on the day of incident, he heard commotion of village children as to the looters having come in the field of Thakurs, therefore, he rushed towards Umrao Singhs field, alongwith his uncle Bhagwan Singh whereupon suddenly they saw Umrao Singhs son Bhagirath Singh coming out his field duly drenched in blood at his hands, feet and clothes whereupon seeing them, he went back inside his millet field to which they chased and tried to catch him hold of but he escaped himself. He stated that thereafter they went inside Umraos field where found Savitri Devi lying dead and drenched in blood having been oozing out of her neck. In cross examination he stated that Bhagirath Singh was wearing slipper only in a foot with another bare foot. (28). Laduram (PW 7) stated that when he was playing `kabbadi. Nandarams wife came to him saying to play kabbadi, to which he told that leg would be pulled and pushed during the course of playing kabbadi, so then she denied to have played kabbadi and she went to his mother (PW 7s) for sewing her blouse and thereafter she went back. He stated that after some time he heard commotion, so he rushed and in the way one boy met saying that Nandrams wife had been killed whereupon he rushed to Nandram in the field of Lodha Saheb saying about murder of his wife so from where both of them ran towards millet field where Bhagirath Singh had killed Savitri. (29). He stated that after some time he heard commotion, so he rushed and in the way one boy met saying that Nandrams wife had been killed whereupon he rushed to Nandram in the field of Lodha Saheb saying about murder of his wife so from where both of them ran towards millet field where Bhagirath Singh had killed Savitri. (29). Brijmohan Sharma (PW 8) inter alia stated that he was working at the field of Lodhas farm for digging the well alongwith two three persons among whom Bhagirath was working for lifting sand duly dug from the place of well but on the day of incident i.e. 13.8.94, Bhagirath had come to the place of work but lately so he was not allowed to work to which he went saying to return back alongwith his underwear, where after he was made to understood that he would not be taken on work as he was already late so he went back after short stay there. He stated that Nandram was also working as Chowkidar and to whom his wife used to come alongwith his meal and on that day, she came with meal and served meal to her husband and then went back but after one hour of her return one boy came saying of having killed Savitri by some body. In cross examination he stated that Nandrams wife went back after serving meal to her husband at about 10 or 10.15 OClock. (30). Smt. Kani (PW 9) inter alia stated that on the day of incident at about 10 OClock she was going to her field and in the way near boundary of Umrao Singhs field he found one slipper (chappal) which was being seen by her then Bhagirath Singh was found sitting on the Khejri tree, to which he told her as to what was she looking, then she answered as to the chappel, whereupon he told that chappel was of him and so then she also asked him as why was he sitting on the tree, then he told that he climbed over the tree so as to frighten her. She then stated that thereafter she went to her field and in the way she saw Savitri coming after serving meal to her husband in Lodhas farm and then Savitri went towards her house. She then stated that thereafter she went to her field and in the way she saw Savitri coming after serving meal to her husband in Lodhas farm and then Savitri went towards her house. She then stated that when she just reached near her field she heard commotion that Bhagirath killed Savitri and thereafter she reached at the place of incident and where Nanda did also come to whom she told that she had seen Bhagirath sitting at the tree. (31). Narainlal Sharma (PW 10) proved the post mortem report having been conducted in his presence at the spot. He also proved various memoes which were prepared in his presence, namely, inquest report (Ex.P.7), site plan (Ex.P.5), recovery of one slipper (Chappal) (Ex.P.6), recovery of control soil and blood stained soil (Ex.P.8), recovery of blouse, petticoat & Lugri (Ex.P.9), one gold Jolya & one ear-ring (Ex.P.10) & (Ex.P.11), recovery of knief (Ex.P.12) and its site plan (Ex.P.12). He also proved (Ex.P.14) and recovery of one chappal & lungi of accused (Ex.P.15). (32). Sardar Jagdeo Singh (PW 11) stated that in his presence, one `safari suit, one bushirt & pant were recovered vide Ex.P.2. In cross examination he proved that the apparels of accused which were recovered had blood stains like at pant & collar. Bhagwan Sahai (PW 12) proved (Ex.P.16) stating that chappal was got recovered from the accused. Similarly, Lalluram Sharma (PW 14) corroborated Bhagwan Sahai (PW 12) as to the recovery of one chappel from accused in their presence. (33). Shishupal Singh (PW17) who investigated the case appeared in the witness box and proved all the exhibits prepared by him during investigation including arrest memo of the accused, recovery memoes of blood stained apparels of the deceased so also the accused besides controlled soil and blood stained soil, gold Jolya and ear-ring recovered and seized at the instance and information of the accused, site plan, inquest report, recovery memo of knife and chappel of accused and deceased so also the informations volunteered by the accused so as to get recovery of articles effected from respective sites. He also proved written report submitted by the informant at the site. He also proved the signatures of the attesting/motbir witnesses in whose presence various aforesaid exhibits and memoes were prepared, and which established the circumstances against the accused appellant. (34). He also proved written report submitted by the informant at the site. He also proved the signatures of the attesting/motbir witnesses in whose presence various aforesaid exhibits and memoes were prepared, and which established the circumstances against the accused appellant. (34). We have carefully perused the prosecution evidence and found that in cross examination of all the prosecution witnesses, named above, their testimonies have remained unshaken. There is nothing to suggest on record as to what were those extenuating circumstances for these witnesses to have deposed false even though they were closed relatives of the deceased, rather there is nothing on record to discredit their truthfulness to the circumstances and the manner in which the deceased was done away by the accused appellant. (35). The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments tried to create suspicion as regards identity of the accused by saying that the witnesses are related to the deceased and rather interested and therefore, their testimony is not worthy of any credence atleast to connect the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore, contended that merely because Bhagirath was found sitting over Khejri tree as so deposed by aforenamed prosecution witnesses who are not eye witnesses to the occurrence by itself would not be a ground to connect the accused with the crime. Notwithstanding this, in our considered view, there is overwhelming evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime since not only the above named prosecution witnesses have specifically named Bhagirath Singh as assailant who had caused murder of Savitri since he was last seen near the place of occurrence where Savitri was found lying dead in his own (accuseds) field of millet crop, which fact is confirmed from his presence over Khejri tree situated in his own field inasmuch as, Savitri had injury and ligature marks at the neck so also at the ear whereon Savitri was wearing gold ear-ring prior to her death caused by accused Bhagirath Singh, which circumstance stands proved by recovery of the said articles at the instance and information volunteered u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act by accused Bhagirath Singh before getting them seized from the place where he had hidden them or kept mortgaged under memo Ex.P.26. (36). (36). Hence there is no doubt or suspicion in our mind either with regard to the identify of the accused or the place where Savitri (deceased) was found dead. In cross examination no question was put to the prosecution witnesses which could be suggestive of the fact that relationship with the accused and the witnesses were inimical so as to demolish the prosecution case or to establish false implication of the accused on account of the reason of relations between the deceased and the witnesses or the accused being inimical in the past. The law is well established that merely because the witnesses happened to be closed relatives of the deceased would not by itself be a ground for rejecting their testimony if the same remains unshaken, rather they are more natural and probable witnesses. (37). On careful scrutiny of the testimony of the witnesses we found no missing link in the chain of events which would be suggestive of the fact that the accused had been falsely implicated or his identity is doubtful. Looking to the conduct of the appellant who was himself sitting on the tree top situated near the place where the dead body of deceased Savitri was found lying in his own field of millet crop, informants version corroborated by other prosecution witnesses in this regard not only stands fully established being corroborative and conclusive as discussed above but also from the fact that accused appellant Bhagirath Singh, himself, had given an intimation to the informant as to Savitris state of affair or condition, itself, casts suspicion on his conduct that this was a gimmick with a view to cover up his own involvement in crime by posing as truthful informant. The law is well settled that where an accused has been last seen near the place of occurrence with deceased or where the circumstances are suggestive of the fact that the accused had participated in the commission of offence which stands proved either by direct evidence or on the basis of circumstantial evidence connecting him with the crime, and if the circumstances are such as not to cast any doubt with regard to probable role played by accused in the crime, the benefit of doubt should not be extended to him. (38). (38). As regards contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the articles like gold `Jolya (chain) and ear-ring being not described in the inquest report (Ex.P.7), as already discussed above, which in fact were recovered at the instance and information of the accused by the investigating officer vide Ex. P.10 and P. 11, we are of the view that it is not necessary for the prosecution to have specifically mentioned those articles in the inquest report since seizure of those articles were effected at the instance of the accused himself and the inquest report need not to describe the articles not found on the dead body of the deceased but it need to describe the marks establishing cause of death of deceased u/S. 174. Cr.P.C. Thus, no benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused if inquest report did not describe as to the articles looted from the person of the deceased. This would also not make the prosecution case doubtful. (39). Shishupal Singh (I.O.) (PW 17) deposed that on the information volunteered by the accused recovery of weapon of offence i.e. blood stained knief was got recovered at his instance from the house of Pooran Singh vide Ex.P. 13. In cross examination nothing contrary has been elicited by the defence counsel which may extend benefit of doubt to the accused or discredit the recovery memo. From the evidence of Shishupal Singh (I.O.) (PW 17) it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the articles seized during investigation were sealed in separate packets after seizure and sealed packets were received in tact during trial and serological examination which is suggestive of the fact that there was no tampering with sealed packets of recovered & seized articles after their seizure had been effected by the police and were kept in tact. (40). It is a common practice to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross examination. In our considered view, merely because there is inconsistency in evidence would not by itself sufficient to impair the credit of the witnesses. No doubt, Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. No doubt, Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. To contradict a witness, therefore must be to discredit the particular version of the witness. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit of the present statement even if the later is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. In the present case, defence has failed to impeach the credit of any of the prosecution witnesses which proved all the circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. Bhagwan Sahai (Pw 2),Ramnarain (PW 1), Smt. Kani (PW 9), Bheruram (PW 4), Lalluram (PW 5), Ram Sahai (PW 6), Raj Kumar Sharma (PW 19) and Shishupal Singh (PW 17) besides motbir witnesses to various memoes evidences their credibility. They are the most natural witnesses for the offences alleged against the accused. (41). The circumstances brought in evidence on record are not such which would create any suspicion or mystery as regards prosecution case. FIR was lodged with utmost promptitude. Apart from that there is sufficient corroboration of evidence to link the accused with his culpability of the impugned offences. (42). It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances taken together must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held by a catena of dcisions that the circumstances proved must lead to no other inference except that of guilt of the accused. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and we do not think it necessary to multiply authorities on this point. (43). It has been held by a catena of dcisions that the circumstances proved must lead to no other inference except that of guilt of the accused. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and we do not think it necessary to multiply authorities on this point. (43). The circumstances held by the learned trial court established by unimpeachable evidence are that on the day of incident, the accused did not go to the place of his work in the field in time but lately so he was not taken on duty, whereafter her left the place of his work where Nandaram (PW 3) husband of deceased Savitri was also working as Chowkidar and who was on duty, to whom the accused told that his wife (Savitri) would not be bringing his meals as he asked her not to bring, but soon thereafter deceased Savitri brought meal and served meal to her husband (PW 3) and then went back to her house and in the way she met one boy Ladu with whom she wanted to play Kabbadi but could not play and she proceeded further where in the way she met her aunt in-law Smt. Kani (PW 9); that after meeting Smt. Kani deceased went towards her Dhani but thereafter she found accused Bhagirath sitting on the Khejri tree, but after going ahead she found in the field of Umrao (father of accused) Savitri lying as dead duly drenched in blood. Another circumstance held by the learned trial court as established are that Bhagwan Sahai & Ram Sahai (PW 2 & PW 3) had seen Bhagirath (accused) coming out of his millet field wearing only one slipper (chappel) in a foot inasmuch as his clothes, hands and leg were drenched in blood and upon seeing them, Bhagirath turned back to his millet field and thereafter they found dead body of Savitri lying in his millet field. Similarly, Ramnarain (PW 1), Bheruram (PW 4) and Lalluram (PW 5) had seen Bhagirath (accused) going in a state of condition having found him duly drenched in blood at his hands, feet and clothes on the body and further wearing only one slipper (chappel) in a foot with another bare foot without chappel. Similarly, Ramnarain (PW 1), Bheruram (PW 4) and Lalluram (PW 5) had seen Bhagirath (accused) going in a state of condition having found him duly drenched in blood at his hands, feet and clothes on the body and further wearing only one slipper (chappel) in a foot with another bare foot without chappel. It has also been established by unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record that it was very well within knowledge of the accused Bhagirath Singh about the death of deceased Savitri as a result of her murder in his millet field, but he did not stay there rather rushed hurriedly to Bamboria village and in his way he was seen by prosecution witnesses, named above in an incriminating situation. The circumstance as to gold Jolya and earring (which were being worn by the deceased before her murder) having been not found on her person from the date of incident, did also stand established by unimpeachable evidence on record as has rightly been held by the learned trial court that those articles as well as other blood stained articles of accused and deceased were got recovered at the information volunteered by accused and at his instance and those recoveries did also stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstance of putting gold Jolya or mortgage with Rajkumar Sharma (PW 19) just immediately after the incident by accused vide Ex.P.26 is also proved on record. (44). Thus viewed, in a case of circumstantial evidence when incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In the present case, all the circumstances of events referred to above which stand proved by unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused during his examination u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. but he offered no explanation except of mere denial. Therefore, on the circumstances, enumerated above, which have been established by the prosecution, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the charges of murder and robbery for offences u/ss 302, & 392 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that it is the accused (Bhagirath Singh) who is the perpetrator of the crime in question. (45). Therefore, on the circumstances, enumerated above, which have been established by the prosecution, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the charges of murder and robbery for offences u/ss 302, & 392 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that it is the accused (Bhagirath Singh) who is the perpetrator of the crime in question. (45). Hence, on a careful reading of the reasoning of the learned trial court and our considering the evidence on record, as enumerated above, we are of the opinion that the findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial court are consistent with the evidence adduced in the case and do not call for any interference. Consequently, we uphold the impugned judgment dated 30.10.96 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur. The conviction and sentence against accused-appellant awarded by the learned trial court for offences under Sections 302 & 392 IPC, as indicated in first para of this judgment are confirmed. The accused appellant is in jail. He be detained to serve out remaining sentence confirmed by this court. @CENT = @CENT =