Honble MATHUR, J.–These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 4.10.1996 convicting the appellant Ramniwas of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. (2). The appellant Ramniwas was put to trial on the charge of murder of one Shambhoo Dayal and causing injuries to PW-2 Matadeen, PW-3 Shiv Lal and PW-7 Gheesa Ram. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 30.5.1992 and 31.5.1992 at about 2.15 AM, while deceased Shambhoo was sleeping in front of his house, appellant Ram Niwas gave a kulhari blow on his neck, resulting into his instantaneous death. Hearing the abrupt out cry his wife Smt. Chhoti came out of the room and witnessed the incident. Her distress call attracted PW-4 Kailash and PW-9 Kartar. The appellant seeing them ran away towards the street. Her husband was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. It is also alleged that after committing the murder, the appellant caused injuries to PW-2 Matadeen, PW-3 Shivlal and PW-7 Gheesa Ram, who were sleeping outside their houses. It is further alleged that PW-2 Matadeen, PW-22 Mannalal, PW-24 Kailashchand and PW-25 Rajendra who were playing cards, seeing the appellant coming towards them with Kulhari in hand, raised voice. The appellant threw kulhari and ray away. The information of the incident was given to the S.H.O. Police Station Kotputli by PW-19 Jamanlal at 3.15 AM vide Exhibit P-22. On this information police registered a case for offence under Section 302 and 307 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. The appellant was arrested on the same day at 9.30 AM vide exhibit P-9. At the time of arrest the police found blood stains on his shirt. The shirt was seized vide exhibit P-8. A blood stained lathi was also recovered vide exhibit P-17. A blood stained earthen pot of liquor was also recovered vide exhibit P-18. The blood stained axe was seized vide exhibit P-28. The post mortem of the dead body was performed vide exhibit P-25. The shirt was seized vide exhibit P-8. A blood stained lathi was also recovered vide exhibit P-17. A blood stained earthen pot of liquor was also recovered vide exhibit P-18. The blood stained axe was seized vide exhibit P-28. The post mortem of the dead body was performed vide exhibit P-25. After investigation police laid charge sheet against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 and 324 IPC. (3). The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 30 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated. In defence he examined DW-1 Smt. Patasi, DW-2 Vinod, DW-3 Suresh and DW-4 Ratan. Analysing the evidence, the trial court found the charges levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced in the manner noticed above. (4). We have heard Mr. Biri Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.S. Aggarwal. Public Prosecutor and perused the record. In order to better appreciate the prosecution case it will be convenient to read the sequence of the incident as follows:- I. Incident causing murder of Shambhoo Dayal. II. While running away after committing the murder of Shumbhoo Dayal appellant causing injuries to PW-2 Matadeen, PW-3 Shivlal and PW-7 Gheesa Ram by Kulhari. III. After second incident, appellant running towards PW-22 Manna Lal, PW-24 Kailash Chand and PW-25 Rajendra who were playing cards and threw kulhari. IV. Causing damage to property of people on road in the night. V. Returning to the house of maternal uncle, under influence of liquor. (5). The prosecution has examined PW-1 Smt. Chhoti as an eye witness, but a careful reading of her statement shows that she is not an eye witness. Therefore, there is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution has relied upon the following piece of circumstances against the appellant:- (i) Hearing the out cry of deceased Shambhoo Dayal PW-1 Smt. Chhoti came out and saw her husband injured in pool of blood. The accused was standing nearby armed with a blood stained kulhari. (ii) In the intervening night of 30th and 31.05.1992, during the period 2.15 to 3.30 AM, appellant caused injuries to many persons and damaged property. The accused was standing nearby armed with a blood stained kulhari. (ii) In the intervening night of 30th and 31.05.1992, during the period 2.15 to 3.30 AM, appellant caused injuries to many persons and damaged property. (iii) The appellant failed to explain presence of blood spots on his shirt. (iv) Recovery of kulhari, blood stains on pot of liquor. (6). It is well settled that in the case of circumstantial evidence it is for the prosecution to establish the various limbs in the chain of evidence by a cogent evidence and such circumstance must point towards the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness and further the circumstances must be prolimit to the time and situation. FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE (7). PW-1 Smt. Chhoti is the wife of deceased Shambhoo Dayal. She stated that on the date of incident her husband was sleeping outside the house on a cot. She was sleeping inside and the door of the room was open. At about 2.00 or 2.30 AM, she was awakened hearing the out cry of her husband. She came out and found the appellant standing with a kulhari in his hand. The appellant gave kulhari blow on the neck of her husband. She raised hue and cry which attracted PW-4 Kailash and PW-19 Jamanlal. She also stated that at the time of incident the accused was wearing a pant and shirt. Seeing them he ran away towards the street. Jamnalal and Kailash took her husband to the hospital where he was declared dead. In the cross examination, it is admitted that she reached on the spot after hearing the out cry of her deceased husband. Before her arrival the appellant inflicted a kulhari blow on her husband. She stated that after seeing her. he ran away. She categorically stated that she had seen the appellant standing after causing injuries to her husband by kulhari. She stated ^^eSus eqyfte dks dqYgkM+h dh ekjus ds ckn [kM+s gq, dks vPNh rjg ls ns[k fy;k Fkk** Smt. Chhoti cannot said to be an eye witness, because as per her own admission, she arrived on the spot after the fatal blow was given to the deceased. However, just after the incident she had seen the deceased Shambhoo lying in pool of blood and the appellant standing nearby armed with a kulhari. This fact is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. However, just after the incident she had seen the deceased Shambhoo lying in pool of blood and the appellant standing nearby armed with a kulhari. This fact is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. PW-1 Smt. Chhoti identified the appellant in the court as well as in the identification proceeding. The appellant was arrested on 31.5.1992 itself vide exhibit P-9. An identification parade was arranged in presence of PW-29 Bhawan Goyal, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali at the relevant time. He has stated that the identification parade was arranged in the sub-jail, Kotputali on the request of the police. He also stated that the identification parade was arranged in accordance of the prescribed procedure. He followed all the necessary procedure and took precautions. He has proved the identification memo exhibit P-30. PW-1 Chhoti correctly identified the appellant. Mr. Biri Singh has criticized the evidence of identification on the ground of delay. It is submitted that while the appellant was arrested on 31.5.1992 the identification parade was arranged as late as on 17.6.1992. It is submitted that there is no explanation for the delay in conducting the identification parade. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the statement of PW-25 Rajendra wherein he admitted that the accused was shown to him by the police prior to the identification parade. It is submitted that there is no guarantee if the police could show the appellant to PW-25 Rajendra, they could also shown to PW-1 Smt. Chhoti. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Shambhoo Dayal vs. Subhash Chandra (1). In the said case the explanation given by the Investigating Officer for delay in arrananging the identification parade was not found reliable and as such the evidence of identification was rejected. In Shambhoo Dayals case the Investigating Officer stated that he did not made request to the learned Magistrate for arranging the identification parade as one of the accused Dalchand was admitted in the hospital. The court on scrutiny of the material on record found that he was discharged from the hospital much earlier than the date given by the Investigating Officer. In view of this, the explanation given by the Investigating Officer was found to be false. The court on scrutiny of the material on record found that he was discharged from the hospital much earlier than the date given by the Investigating Officer. In view of this, the explanation given by the Investigating Officer was found to be false. In the instant case no question has been put to the Investigating Officer in his cross examination for delay in making request for arranging the identification parade. PW-30 Amar Singh who investigated the case has stated that the appellant was kept `baparda throughout. There is no suggestion to Smt. Chhoti, if appellant was shown to her before identification parade. In this part of the country, normally as a custom a widow does not go out of the house for one year and in no case before 12 days. If she could not leave house for 12 days, as per custom, where was the question of going to Police Station to see the accused. Explanation could come only when question pertaining to delay was put to the Investigating Officer. Thus, simply because PW-25 Rajendra states that he had seen the appellant prior to the identification it cannot be said that Mst. Chhoti had also seen the appellant prior to the identification parade. In view of this, the authority cited by the learned counsel does not advance the case of the appellant. The statement of Smt. Chhoti also finds corroboration from the medical evidence. There is injury on the neck caused by sharp edged weapon. PW-23 Dr. Mahesh Aggarwal has stated that he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Shambhoo Dayal on 31.5.1992. He found the following injuries on the dead body:- Incised wound (spindle shape) 10 x 3 x 3 cm on the lift side of neck. Left sternomastoid left carotid artery and jugular vein are cut. The wound was filled with clotted blood. He has proved the post mortem report exhibit P-25. (8). The learned counsel has also criticized the evidence of Smt. Chhoti on the ground that the prosecution has led two sets of evidence and as such none of the evidence is a trustworthy, on the basis of which the conviction of the appellant can sustained. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Harcharan Singh vs. State of Haryana (2). The contention deserves to be rejected outrightly being wholly misconceived. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Harcharan Singh vs. State of Haryana (2). The contention deserves to be rejected outrightly being wholly misconceived. When prosecution leads two sets of evidence of the same incident which contradicts each other, there may be criticism of leading two sets of evidence, but in the instant case, the prosecution has led evidence with respect to the first part of the incident i.e., murder of Shambhoo Dayal, by examining PW-1 Smt. Chhoti, PW-4 Kailash and PW-19 Jamanlal. Other evidence of PW-2 Matadeen, PW-3 Shiv Lal, PW-7 Gheesa Ram, PW-22 Manna Lal, PW-24 Kailash Chand and PW-25 Rajendra are of the second and third incident. Thus, by no stretch of imagination this can said to be a case of leading two sets of evidence. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. PW-1 Smt. Chhoti has identified the appellant in the identification proceedings as well as in the court. Her testimony is corroborated by the prompt FIR as well as the medical evidence. Her statement also finds corroboration from the statement of PW-4 Kailash. PW-4 Kailash has stated that hearing the out cry of Smt. Chhoti, he reached on the spot and found deceased Shambhoo Dayal lying with cut injury on neck. There was profuse bleeding. He found appellant running away from the spot with kulhari in hand. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Chhoti. She is a witness of sterling worth. Thus, the first circumstance is of conclusive nature. This single circumstances, alone is sufficient leading to the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant Ram Niwas and Ram Niwas alone, who committed the murder of Shambhoo. SECOND CIRCUMSTANCE (9). PW-2 Matadeen stated that in the night at about 2.30 or 3.00 AM while he was sleeping somebody caused injury on his neck. PW- 16 Dr. Balbir Yadav has proved his injury report exhibit P-15. It shows that he had sustained grievous injuries by sharp edged weapon. Similarly, there is statement of PW-7 Gheesa Ram that somebody caused injuries to him while he was sleeping in the night between 2.30 to 3.00 AM. PW-16 Dr. Balbir Yadav stated that he medically examined Gheesaram and prepared the injury report Exhibit P-13. It shows that he had sustained grievous injuries by sharp edged weapon. Similarly, there is statement of PW-7 Gheesa Ram that somebody caused injuries to him while he was sleeping in the night between 2.30 to 3.00 AM. PW-16 Dr. Balbir Yadav stated that he medically examined Gheesaram and prepared the injury report Exhibit P-13. The evidence of both the witnesses is not of much significance as they have not identified the appellant. However, their evidence is relevant to the extent that at the same time when the murder of Shambhoo Dayal took place some unidentified person caused injuries to them as well. PW-3 Shiv Lal has stated that in the night when he was sleeping in open at about 2.30 AM somebody caused injury by kulhari on his chest. He woke up and found that the appellant was standing with a kulhari in his hand. He also inflicted injuries on his legs. Thereafter, he ran away. He identified the appellant in the identification parade as well as in the court. His injuries were examined by PW-16 Dr. Balbir Yadav. He has also proved the injury report exhibit P-16. He has sustained simple injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. The fact that at the same point of time when Shambhoo Dayal was murdered the appellant also caused injuries to PW-13 Shiv Lal by kulhari, provides an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. (10). At the same point of time PW-22 Manna Lal, PW-24 Kailash Chand and PW-25 Rajendra saw appellant approaching fast towards them and also throwing kulhari. PW-22 Manna Lal has stated that on 31.5.1991 when infront of his house he alongwith PW-24 Kailash Chand, PW-25 Rajendra and PW-22 Matadeen were playing cards, the appellant came running towards them. Seeing him they raised voice. The appellant threw Kulhari and ran away. This witness identified appellant in identification proceedings. He has also identified him in the court. PW-24 Kailash Chand has also given the statement almost in the same line. He has also identified the appellant in the court as well as in the identification proceedings. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. This sequence of event showing the conduct of the appellant which is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act is again an important circumstance in completing the chain. (11). He has also identified the appellant in the court as well as in the identification proceedings. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. This sequence of event showing the conduct of the appellant which is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act is again an important circumstance in completing the chain. (11). PW-6 Sultan has stated that he resides in the same locality in which Shambhoo Dayal was murdered namely Boochahera. In the morning, he found that one tyre which was hanging infront of his house was lying on the ground. PW-15 Parmod Bansal has stated that in the night when he was sleeping in the room, he heard that somebody has caused damage to his car. (12). The last in the sequence, PW-20 Smt. Meena has stated that she knew Ram Niwas. He was drunk. He caused injuries to her father Matadeen at about 2.30 AM. After one and half hour he returned to the locality and entered in the house of his maternal uncle. The Investigating Officer PW-30 Amar Singh has stated that the appellant was found in the house of Prahlad. The earthen pot full of liquor was found on which there were spots of blood. The sequence of events shows that the conduct of appellant was unusual in time, proximate to the time of murder of Shambhoo which is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act providing important link in the chain of circumstances. THIRD CIRCUMSTANCES (13). The appellant was arrested vide exhibit P-9. The police seized the shirt which he was wearing at that time vide exhibit P-8. PW-30 Amar Singh has stated that he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana at police station Kotputali. PW-18 Kailash Chand has stated that he had taken the packet alongwith the letter of Superintendent of Police and the Specimen seal to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur. The FSL report exhibit P-32 shows that blood spots on the shirt were stained with the human blood. The appellant has failed to prove the presence of blood spots on shirt. It is an important incriminating circumstance against the appellant. (14). Taking the first circumstance individually and other circumstances collectively, leads to the only inference that it is the appellant Ram Niwas and Ram Niwas alone who committed the murder of Shambhoo. The appellant has failed to prove the presence of blood spots on shirt. It is an important incriminating circumstance against the appellant. (14). Taking the first circumstance individually and other circumstances collectively, leads to the only inference that it is the appellant Ram Niwas and Ram Niwas alone who committed the murder of Shambhoo. The trial court has rightly convicted him of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (15). In view of this, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali dated 4.10.1996 does not call for interference in these two appeals (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 637/1996 and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 2/1997). The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is confirmed. The appellant is in jail. He shall undergo the remaining part of the sentence.