Judgment Narayan Roy and M.L.Visa JJ. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the Fardbeyan of Sk. Ghetu, PW. 11, briefly stated, is that in the night of 30th October, 1988, he was sleeping along with his two sons namely accused Sk. Ilyas and deceased Sk. Nayeem in the Baithka alter taking their supper. He was sleeping on chouki in the baithka whereas his son Ilyas was also sleeping on bench in the said baithka. Deceased Nayeem was sleeping in bench just outside the baithka in the east side of the Osara. In the dead of night the informant heard the sound of falling of bench and woke up from slumber. He saw his youngest son Nayeem wailing on the earth and his neck was chopped of. The blood was oozing out of the wound of neck. The informant raised an alarm which attracted neighbours towards the scene of occurrence. The accused was searched in the Baithka but he was conspicuously found absent. Thereafter a hectic search was made but he could not be located. The informant alleged that his son Ilyas committed murder of Nayeem by chopping his neck. There is also a motive for committing this ghastly crime. Sometimes before Ilyas had committed theft of Rs. 1500/- belonging to this informant and had kept it inside the bed of his betterhalf. The deceased had recovered the amount inside the bed of his Bhabhi and had handed over the same to the informant. On such account accused Ilyas was at loggerhead with the deceased who was unmarried and was prosecuting his study. 4 The fardbeyan of P.W. 11 Sk. Ghetu was recorded on 31.10.1988 at 10 A.M. and thereafter a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. After due investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of sessions where the appellant was tried and he was found guilty and was sentenced as indicated above. 5. The prosecution, in all, examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them. P.W. 1 Sk. Nasir, P.W. 2 Panchu Mahalkar, P.W. 4 Sk. 5. The prosecution, in all, examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them. P.W. 1 Sk. Nasir, P.W. 2 Panchu Mahalkar, P.W. 4 Sk. Rasool, P.W. 5 Abdul Gafoor, P.W. 6 Sk. Turai, P.W. 9 Md. Kamaruddin and P.W. 11 Sk. Ghetu are the witnesses showing circumstances against the appellant for murder of Md. Nayeem. P.W. 3 Sk. Siddiqui, P.W. 10 Bibi Tetri have been declared hostile. P.W. 7 Sk. Mustafa has been tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 8 Dr. K.K. Das had held autopsy over the dead body of Md. Nayeem on 1.11.1988 whereas P.W. 12 Sidheshwar Nath Giri is the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the entire case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution witnesses whereby and whereunder a link has been completed. 7. P.W. 11 the informant Sk. Ghetu is the father of the deceased as well as the appellant. In his evidence, he has stated that in the fateful night after taking meal he had slept in the Baithka whereas the appeilant Md. Ilyas was sleeping on the bench in the Baithka by his side and the deceased Nayeem was sleeping on the other bench on the outer Osara of the Baithka. In the mid night he woke up on hearing the sound of groaning and he saw the deceased in the pool of blood. At that time, he found his son the appellant Md. Ilyas absent from the bed. This witness, however, categorically stated in his evidence that it was the appellant Md. Ilyas who killed Nayeem and fled away just to screen the offence. He has further stated in his evidence that he had raised halla on which several persons collected over there and had seen the occurrence and to them also he had said that it was Md. Ilyas who assaulted the deceased. In the evidence this witness has also assigned motive for the alleged assault by Md. Ilyas and said that once he had stolen Rs. 1500/ which was recovered by the deceased from beneath his bed and from that day the appellant had nursed grudge against him. 8. P. W. 4 Sk. Ilyas who assaulted the deceased. In the evidence this witness has also assigned motive for the alleged assault by Md. Ilyas and said that once he had stolen Rs. 1500/ which was recovered by the deceased from beneath his bed and from that day the appellant had nursed grudge against him. 8. P. W. 4 Sk. Rasool in his evidence has stated that in the night of the occurrence he was sleeping in his house and on hearing sound of weeping from the house of the informant, P.W. 11, he proceeded towards his house with a torch and in the way he saw the appellant Md. Ilyas in the torch light with an axe in his hand and he had also seen blood mark over his cloth. He at the same time, enquired from the appellant as to what is the matter but finding no positive reply from him he went to the place of occurrence and there he found the deceased lying on the earth with injuries on his neck. There he was informed by P.W. 11 that Md. Ilyas cut the neck of the deceased. The motive of the occurrence was also conveyed to him by the informant as discussed above. P.W. 4 has been cross examined at length but he has not been discredited from his testimony. 9. P. W. 5 Abdul Gafoor, one of the uncles of the deceased, in his evidence has stated categorically that on hearing the sound of weeping of the parents of the deceased he came out from his house with a torch in his hand and while he was going towards the house of the informant he saw Md. Ilyas, the appellant, fleeing away with a Dabia like instrument in his hand. He had also seen blood stains on his clothes and he followed him and on threat being given by this appellant, he came back to the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased lying on the earth in pool of blood with injuries on his neck. This witness has also stated in his evidence that P.W. 11 Sk. Ghetu informed him that appellant Md. Ilyas after assaulting the deceased, fled away from the house. Motive for the occurrence was also told to him. This witness has also stated in his evidence that P.W. 11 Sk. Ghetu informed him that appellant Md. Ilyas after assaulting the deceased, fled away from the house. Motive for the occurrence was also told to him. Certain suggestions were put to this witness in the cross- examination to the extent that since he was inimical to the appellant, he has not spelt out the truth. The suggestions put forth, however has been denied by this witness and he remained firm in his evidence. 10. The evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 11, though circumstantial in nature, has completed the chain and thus the circumstantial evidence has probative value. The evidence of these witnesses clearly proved the circumstances that it was the appellant who committed murder of his younger brother, the deceased for certain motive. Besides the evidence of these witnesses the evidence of the doctor P.W. 8 fully corroborates the prosecution version of the case to the extent of factum of assault on the deceased. P.W. 8 found the following antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Incised wound on left side of the neck on the middle portion 4" x 1/2" x muscle deep. (ii) Incised wound on left shoulder 5"x 1/2"x muscle deep. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury no. 1 and the weapon used might have been sharp cutting weapon. It is the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that neck of Nayeem was cut with an axe and the evidence of the doctor supports this aspect of the matter that injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like an axe. 11. The evidence of P.W. 12 the I.O. of the case has also corroborated the prosecution version of the case saying that on the preceding day he had gone to the place of occurrence and there he had held inquest and had visited the place of occurrence. In his evidence he states that he had found sufficient blood on the place of occurrence and had also seen the blood stains on the Bench on which the deceased was sleeping and blood stains were also seen on the nearby wall of the Baithka. In his evidence he has also stated that P.Ws. In his evidence he states that he had found sufficient blood on the place of occurrence and had also seen the blood stains on the Bench on which the deceased was sleeping and blood stains were also seen on the nearby wall of the Baithka. In his evidence he has also stated that P.Ws. 6 and 10 had stated before him that the appellant was seen fleeing away with an axe in his hand. However, this fact has not been disclosod by these witnesses in their evidences. 12. The evidence as referred to above, though circumstantial in nature is complete in itself establishing charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The witnesses as referred to above appear to be wholly reliable and quite independent and thus it appears that they have spelt out the truth. It appears that the appellant in his defence, has not examined any witness for his absence from the house and, therefore, the circumstances that after the occurrence he was found missing, further adds to the circumstances disclosed by the prosecution witnesses. The father of the appellant, P.W. 11 was candid in saying that on the fateful night the appellant had slept along with him and the deceased. He was also candid in saying that he woke up on sound of the deceased and he saw the appellant missing. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 gives rather glimpse of the factum of the missing of the appellant to the extent that they had seen him fleeing away with a cutting instrument in his hand. The circumstances, therefore, disclosed by the prosecution, in no way, can be said to be unreliable and since they have completed the link, it has probative value. 13. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed.