RIPUSUDAN DAYAL, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the Judgment and Order by the learned Sessions Judge (Sandw) whereby, the appellant Buddhilall Subba alias Milan Subba was convicted under sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 (Rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 380 Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. It was further ordered that if fine imposed is realized, the same be paid to Smt. Jasmaya Mukhia, wife of the deceased. ( 2 ) THE offence took place on 20/9/1997, a Saturday, on which day Gorey Mukhia died under unusual circumstances. The appellant Buddhilall Subba was working as a domestic servant in the house of the deceased and had been employed only about five months prior to the date of the occurrence. Prosecution case is that on 20/9/1997, which was Hat Day of Reshi Bazaar, the deceased who resided-at lower Karthok firstly left his residence at about 7 a. m. for Rishi Bazaar to sell tobacco. At that time, the deceased was wearing a pair of rubber shoes, long underwear, a shirt and was carrying tobacco in a jute gunny bag. In the gunny bag, he was also carrying a weighing scale and measuring weights. He was also carrying an umbrella and a walking stick. He used to keep his money, in a box, which was kept in the kitchen. He used to carry the key to the box tied to a string around his waist. Shortly after the departure of the deceased, the appellant also left towards the direction in which the deceased had gone under the pretext that he was going to get fodder for the cattle. He carried a sickle in his hand and wrapped a rope for carrying the fodder around his waist. At that time, the appellant was wearing a pair of old worn out slippers. He carried a sickle in his hand and wrapped a rope for carrying the fodder around his waist. At that time, the appellant was wearing a pair of old worn out slippers. The appellant returned back home after an unusual delay, at about 12 noon but without bringing any fodder or little fodder. He was looking nervous and restless when he came back. He was not wearing his slippers. Niru Mukhia (PW-8), the daughter-in-law of the, deceased enquired as to where he had kept his slippers, whereupon, he (the appellant) replied that the slippers were broken and. therefore, he had thrown them away. He looked restless the whole day and even at night time. During the night he stole a sum of Rs, 15,000. 00 (fifteen thousand) from the box, which was kept in the kitchen. The appellant woke up earlyt which was quite unusual and got ready saying that he had to go to Legship to get his passport size photographs. The family members insisted that he should not go to Legship that day as there was no one else to look after the cattle but he insisted on going to Legship and did not come back thereafter. As the deceased did not return by Tuesday, the 23rd of September, 1997, Jasmaya Mukhia (PW-4), the widow of the deceased, sent her third son Gopilall Mukhia to look for him but he came back in the afternoon saying that he did not find the deceased. She then apprehended that some mishap might have taken place and asked her sons Gopilall and Ganesh and a few villagers to go in search of her husband between the footpath and its adjoining areas till Rishi. At a place called Mukthaney Khola on way to Legship, the group found, the belongings of his father like the bag of tobacco, umbrella, shoes, stick etc. Thereafter, Gopilall Mukhia went to the Kaluk Police Station and made a verbal complaint on 24/9/1997 at 1. 30 hrs vide G. D. entry No. 222 to the effect that the deceased Gorey Mukhia was found lying dead in the bottom of Mukthaney Khola, Najur Barfock Block, West Sikkim in the evening of 23/9/1997. Thereupon. a Kaluk Police Station U. D. case No. 12 (9)97 dated 24/9/1997 was registered under section 174 Cr. P. C. for investigation. 30 hrs vide G. D. entry No. 222 to the effect that the deceased Gorey Mukhia was found lying dead in the bottom of Mukthaney Khola, Najur Barfock Block, West Sikkim in the evening of 23/9/1997. Thereupon. a Kaluk Police Station U. D. case No. 12 (9)97 dated 24/9/1997 was registered under section 174 Cr. P. C. for investigation. The investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector, Ambika Subba, P. W-20 who was in charge of the Kaluk Police Station. She found on 24/9/1997 the body of the deceased in the bottom of Mukthaney Khola. The dead body was found disfigured with head injuries and injuries on the mouth and teeth. It was lying about 80 feet below the village road of lower Karthok. Under the dead body, she found one HMT Kohinoor wrist, watch belonging to the deceased and one slipper of the right leg of the appellant. They were so identified by Gopilall Mukhia (PW-1), the son of the deceased. These articles were seized vide seizure memo exhibit P-3 witnessed by Gopal Chettri PW-11 and Kumar Subba PW-2. The Investigating Officer also found just below the village road the following articles:1. One red colour umbrella with white handle, length about 2'6 2. One pair brown colour rubber shoes; 3. One small sack containing approx 6 kgs. of tobacco and weight and measurement instruments; 4. One wooden stick having length about 26, one end of the stick covered with iron and other end slightly bent; 5. One slipper of left leg. The distance between these articles and the dead body was about 70 feet. Gopilall Mukhia identified the slipper as belonging to the appellant Buddhilall Subba and rest of the articles as, belonging to his deceased father. These articles were seized vide seizure memo exhibit P-1 which was witnessed by Tashi Bhutia PW-5 and Dhan Bahadur Subba PW-3. The memo also bears the signature of Gopilall Mukhia. ( 3 ) AFTER collecting information, seizing certain articles and recording some evidence, S-I- Ambika Subba made a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate, Gyalzing, District West Sikkim giving the details of what she had done, inter alia, stating that Kaluk Police Station Case No. 22 (9)97 dated 24/9/1997 had been registered against the appellant Buddhilall Subba under section 302/380 IPC. The complaint dated 24/9/1997 is exhibit P-16 and the formal FIR is exhibit P-17. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. The complaint dated 24/9/1997 is exhibit P-16 and the formal FIR is exhibit P-17. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. Bikash Pradhan PW-16 who proved his report exhibit P-7, According to him, he detected the following injuries: (1) Whole of skull fractured and lacerated; brain lacerated. (2) Skull fractured. Only part of frontal and occipital intact. (3) Brain meninges and blood vessels all torn and lacerated. According to medical evidence these injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was laceration of brain due to head injuries. The appellant was arrested on 21/10/1997, that is, after one month of the date of the occurrence. ( 4 ) THE case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court held that the following circumstances have been established by evidence and they taken together are such as to point out to the guilt of the appellant alone and would rule out the hypothesis of his innocence. The circumstances enumerated are as follows: (i) the appellant had been working as a servant in the house of the deceased for 5/6 months and that also by not disclosing his real name; (ii) the appellant left towards the same direction after 10 minutes of the departure of the deceased on the plea that he was going to collect fodder; (iii) the appellant returned home late without bringing any fodder and without his slipper worn; (iv) the appellant on the relevant day appeared unusually nervous and restless; (v) in the relevant night, the appellant was found in the kitchen: (vi) on the following day early in the morning he left the home of the deceased after taking permission from the wife of the deceased on the plea that he had to collect his passport size photographs from Rishi Bazar, but he never came back thereafter; (vii) at Yangang he sent Rs. 1,000. 00 to his mother at Sakyong through his sister and he gave a loan of Rs. 2,000 to his brother-in-law; (viii) The key of the wooden box was not found either with the dead body of the deceased or from the place where other articles of the deceased had been recovered. ( 5 ) NOW we find for ourselves whether the above circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. In all 20 (twenty) witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. ( 5 ) NOW we find for ourselves whether the above circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. In all 20 (twenty) witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. Out of them, three, namely, Shri M. B. Chettri PW-10. Sanchamaya Subba PW-13 and Sanchamayn Rai PW-14 were merely tendered. It needs special mention that PW-13 is the mother and PW 14 is the sister of the appellant. None of the tendered witnesses were cross- examined on behalf of the appellant. The circumstances have been proved mainly by Gopilall Mukhia, PW-1 who is the son of the deceased. Jasmaya Mukhia, PW-4 who is the widow of the deceased, Meena Mukhia. PW-6, the daughter of the deceased. Neeru Mukhia, PW-8 wife of Gopilall. Mukhia. PW-1 and Jit Bahadur Rai, PW-7 who is the brother-in-law (husband of the sister) of the appellant. ( 6 ) GOPILALL Mukhia, PW-1 has deposed that the appellant had been taken in employment by his family five months prior to the date of the occurrence. The day of the occurrence was a Saturday, which was the Hat Day of Rishi Bazaar. His father, the deceased, had left the house at about 7. 00 a. m. for Rishi Bazaar with tobacco for sale. As his father did not return home till Tuesday, he alongwith other villagers went in search of him and at a place called Mukthaney Khola on way to Legship found the belongings of his father like, a bag of tobacco, umbrella, shoes and stick etc. He identified the articles belonging to his father. He also identified the slippers as belonging to the appellant saying that the appellant used to wear the same while he was under employment of the family. On seeing these articles, he reported the matter; to Kaluk Police Station. Thereafter, the police from Kaluk Police Station proceeded to the place where the belongings of the father were recovered and the dead body of the father was found about 100 ft down in the water. The body had a number of head injuries. He also deposed that after his father had left for Rishi Bazaar, the appellant left the house after about half an hour under the pretext of bringing fodder and proceeded towards the direction in which the father had gone. The body had a number of head injuries. He also deposed that after his father had left for Rishi Bazaar, the appellant left the house after about half an hour under the pretext of bringing fodder and proceeded towards the direction in which the father had gone. His father had a wooden box in his room in which he used to keep money and documents. The said box had a lock and the key was used to be tagged in the trouser string of his father. He further deposed that the key was not found attached to the trouser string of his deceased father. Therefore, suspicion arose that the key might have been stolen and so the lock of the wooden box was broken open and it was found that more than a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) was missing from the box. Cash was used to be kept in a small tiffin carrier kind of container inside the box. The wooden box and the small container were also seized by the police. He identified the various exhibits and also proved the seizure memos. Jasmaya Mukhia, PW-4, the wife of the deceased has corroborated the testimony of PW-1. She further stated that the appellant had given out his name as Milan Rai but later it came to be known that his real name was Buddhilall Subba and that he had come to their house to seek employment after committing some offence. She also stated that on the morning when her husband left for Rishi bazaar, the accused was present and after about ten minutes, the appellant also left towards the same direction under the pretext of bringing fodder. He was carrying a sickle in his hand and had wrapped the rope meant for carrying the fodder around his waist. The appellant was also wearing a pair of old worn out slippers on his legs. The appellant came back home at about twelve noon but without bringing any fodder. He was looking nervous and restless. She has also deposed that her daughter-in-law 9-sked him as to why he was late, whereupon the appellant replied that he had gone to the village. Her daughter-in-law. Niru Mukhia then enquired where he had kept his slippers. The appellant replied that since they were broken, he had thrown them away. He was looking nervous and restless. She has also deposed that her daughter-in-law 9-sked him as to why he was late, whereupon the appellant replied that he had gone to the village. Her daughter-in-law. Niru Mukhia then enquired where he had kept his slippers. The appellant replied that since they were broken, he had thrown them away. The appellant looked restless the whole day and after 3 p. m. , he started asking her time and again whether her husband would return that evening. She has further stated that the appellant appeared restless even during the night time. Usually, she used to wake up the appellant along with the other members of the family but on the following day, that is, 21/9/1997, he woke up himself and got ready saying that he had to go to Legship to bring his passport size photographs. She and her family members insisted that he should not go to Legship that day as there was no one else to look after the cattle, but the appellant insisted on going to Legship saying that he would come back immediately; but the appellant did not come back. On the following Tuesday, i. e. , 23/9/1997, as her husband had not come back, she asked her son Gopilall to look for him. Gopilall returned back in the afternoon saying that he did not find the deceased. Thereupon she apprehended some mishap and asked her sons Gopilall and Ganesh and a few villagers to go in search of the deceased between the footpath and its adjoining areas till Rishi. After sometime, the two sons and some villagers came back and informed her that they had found some belongings of the deceased near the footpath near Mukthaney Khola. Thereupon, she sent her son Gopilall to Kaluk Police Station to inform about the matter and again requested the villagers to search for her husband. She also proved certain exhibits. Meena Mukhia, PW-6 who is the daughter of the deceased has corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4. She has, inter alia, stated that in the evening of 20-9-1997, she went to bed after 8 p. m. She was woken by some commotion in the kitchen at about 10. 30 p. m. She thought that her father had returned from Rishi Bazar and woke up her sister, Guddu Mukhia telling her that they should go and serve dinner to their father. 30 p. m. She thought that her father had returned from Rishi Bazar and woke up her sister, Guddu Mukhia telling her that they should go and serve dinner to their father. When she came to the kitchen, she found the appellant there. The appellant looked nervous and shocked on seeing her and pretended to draw out water from the bucket for drinking. She enquired of him why he had not gone to bed till that time. Thereupon, he replied that he was watching some movie on the television. She then noticed that the lock which her father had put on his wooden box in the kitchen was shaking. She checked the lock but found the same intact. Thereafter, she went to check if any programme was going on in the television and was surprised to find that the television station was off and there was no programme on the television. PW-8. Neeru Mukhia, is the wife of Gopilall Mukhia, PW-1. She has also deposed that after her father-in- law had left for Rishi Bazaar, the appellant left towards the same direction after about 10 minutes. The appellant returned at about 12 noon but did not bring any fodder. When she enquired as to why he had come so late without bringing fodder, he told her that he had gone to the village. She also found that the appellant was not wearing his slippers. On enquiry, he replied that since they had broken, he had thrown them in the jungle. She identified the slippers Exhibits 6 (a) and 6 (b) as belonging to the appellant saying that the appellant used to wear the same while under employment. Jit Bahadur Rai PW-7 is husband of the sister of the appellant. He has deposed that fifteen days prior to the arrest of the accused, the appellant came to his house. When he enquired as to from where he had come, he replied that he was coming from Darjeeling as he was working in a tea garden. Dasai is an important festival and that was approaching, The appellant gave the witness Rs. 1,000/- with the request that he should send the same to his mother at Sakyong for the festival. The witness also wanted some money for the enduing festival and requested the appellant to lend him Rs. 2000/-, which the appellant did. Dasai is an important festival and that was approaching, The appellant gave the witness Rs. 1,000/- with the request that he should send the same to his mother at Sakyong for the festival. The witness also wanted some money for the enduing festival and requested the appellant to lend him Rs. 2000/-, which the appellant did. Thereafter, the appellant stayed at his place for fifteen days till the arrival of the police who arrested him and took him to Kaluk Police Station. The sum of Rs. 1,000/- meant for his mother had already been handed over to her. The sum of Rs. 2,000/-, which he had borrowed was later handed over by him to Kaluk Police Station vide seizure memo Annexure P-5. The sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also returned to the police vide seizure memo exhibit P-6. ( 7 ) ONE document on which reliance was placed by the appellant is the disclosure statement exhibit P20 allegedly made, by the appellant on 23-10-1997. This is a long statement recorded in Nepali. The relevant portion thereof on which reliance was placed has been rendered in English as under: TIJ took out that steel box and put it in my pocket and locked that box as it is and went for the toilet. There opened that steel box and took out the money and put it in my pocket and threw that steel box far away from the toilet. T ( 8 ) THE prosecution case is that in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the steel box was recovered very near the toilet. However, the disclosure statement suffers from the infirmity that it does not bear the signature of the appellant. Evidence produced, to prove the disclosure statement and the discovery of the tiffin box as a consequence thereof also suffers from several discrepancies. Dhan Bahadur Subba PW-3 who is one of the witnesses to the disclosure statement has stated in his cross-examination that the Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement. Exhibit P-20, after the tiffin box had been recovered. If this statement be believed, there was no discovery in pursuance of the disclosure statement. Further, this witness stated at another place that the statement of the appellant was recorded at the house of the deceased but the Investigating Officer has stated at one place that the statement was recorded at the Kaluk Police Station. If this statement be believed, there was no discovery in pursuance of the disclosure statement. Further, this witness stated at another place that the statement of the appellant was recorded at the house of the deceased but the Investigating Officer has stated at one place that the statement was recorded at the Kaluk Police Station. In Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab, the disclosure statement was held to inspire no confidence, firstly, because the Panch witnesses had not been examined and, secondly, because the disclosure statement did not bear the signatures or the thumb impression of the accused. Finding that in the instant case the prosecution case about the disclosure statement suffers from grave discrepancies, the learned Public Prosecutor has rightly conceded that no reliance may be placed upon the statement. He, however, submitted that even without the disclosure statement the other evidence on record is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant did not give any satisfactory explanation to show why the evidence produced against him should not be believed. The first question relates to the evidence of PW-1 Gopilall Mukhia, that the appellant was employed by the deceased as a domestic servant in the Nepali month of Jeth in the year 1997 and after five months thereof, the incident leading to the death of the deceased occurred. To this question he replied TIJ do not know. Thus, according to his reply, he did not know even whether he had been employed as a domestic servant by the deceased or whether the incident occurred about five months of his having been employed. In reply to the second question, he said that he had gone to his own house one week prior to the incident. To prove this allegation he has not produced any evidence. He did not try to prove this allegation even from his mother. Sanchamaya Subba, who was tendered by the prosecution as PW-13 or his sister. Sanchamaya Rai, who was tendered as PW-14. It was not suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses also, that the appellant had gone to his own house prior to the date of the occurrence. The defence put in by the appellant in his statement is blatantly false. Sanchamaya Subba, who was tendered by the prosecution as PW-13 or his sister. Sanchamaya Rai, who was tendered as PW-14. It was not suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses also, that the appellant had gone to his own house prior to the date of the occurrence. The defence put in by the appellant in his statement is blatantly false. It is a well settled principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. Reference in this connection may be made to Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan and State of U. P. v. Han Mohan. Besides, the appellant instead of making an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating him and connecting him to the crime resorted to an attitude of denial of every thing when the circumstances were brought to his notice by the court and he thus not only lost his opportunity but stood self condemned. In this we find support from Josheph v. State of Kerala. ( 9 ) SHRI N. K. P. Sarraf, the learned counsel for the appellant during arguments made some comments upon the overwriting in the General Diary entries. G. D. Entry No. 222 (Exhibit P-26) recorded at 0130 hrs. on 24/9/1997 is to the effect that Gopilall Mukhia of lower Karthok turned up at, the Police Station and lodged a verbal complaint stating that his father, namely, Gorey Mukhia was found lying dead at, the bottom of Muktaney Khola under Najur Barfock Block, West Sikkim in the evening of 23/9/1997, whereupon, U. D. case No. 12 (9)97 dated 24-9-1997 U/s 174 Cr. P. C. was registered for investigation. In this entry there is some over-writing on the figure 30. The next entry is 223. Exhibit P-27 and there is over-writing on the figure 3. The next entry is 224 Exhibit P28 and there is over-writing on figure 4. Thereafter, the next entry is 230. Exhibit P-29. The learned counsel has submitted that the overwriting suggested that there was some manipulation. However, we are unable to draw such inference. The learned counsel has not been able to show how the appellant has been prejudiced on account of the over-writing. Thereafter, the next entry is 230. Exhibit P-29. The learned counsel has submitted that the overwriting suggested that there was some manipulation. However, we are unable to draw such inference. The learned counsel has not been able to show how the appellant has been prejudiced on account of the over-writing. If the overwriting had been done only to correct something initially written wrongly then no fault can be found with it. After entry No. 222 it is only natural that entry No. 223 should be there and after entry No. 223 entry No. 224 should follow. If instead wrong figures had been put in initially and if subsequently correction was made an inference of prejudice to the appellant would not be justified. The appellant had the opportunity to put relevant questions to the Investigating Officer at the time of his cross- exam ination to show prejudice but this was not done. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel also submitted that after G. D. entry No. 224. G. D. entry. No. 230 has been produced and the entries bearing numbers 225 to 229 have not been produced. The reason may be that the missing entries might not be relevant for the instant case. If the appellant thought that the other entries were relevant then the production thereof should have been insisted upon by him at the time of the cross-examination but there was no such insistence. The learned counsel also submitted that the original entries were not there at the time of the recording of the evidence and only the carbon copies had been produced. If the learned counsel felt that it was necessary to have the original the same could have been insisted upon at the time of evidence. As no such insistence was done it is difficult to draw any inference that the appellant has been prejudiced for that reason. The learned counsel also referred to the statement of Gopilall Mukhia PW-1 in his cross-examination where he stated: The written report submitted to the Police by me is not in the court to-day and submitted that non-production of the report shows that a false case has been thrusted upon the appellant. According to the prosecution no written report was submitted to the police. G. D. entry no. According to the prosecution no written report was submitted to the police. G. D. entry no. 222 shows that only verbal complaint had been lodged and formal FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint by the S. 1. Ambika Subba after the inquest and some investigation into the case had been conducted by her pursuant to the registration of the G. D case. It appears that PW -1 made the statement to the effect that the written complaint was made by him on account of some confusion. It appears that no written complaint was ever made by him. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel has also submitted that the FIR was recorded on the basis of the complaint dated 24-9-1997 made by S. I. Ambika Subba who investigated the case and the complainant should not have herself investigated into the case. In support of his submissin he has referred to Megha Singh v. State of Haryana. In that case Head Constable Sin Chand PW-3 and Constable Bhup Singh PW-2 and other police personnel were present on the Kacha road. The accused after seeing the police tried to cross the field whereupon the police became suspicious and so intercepted and searched the person of the accused and on search recovered a country made pistol and three live cartridges from him. The said pistol and cartridges were possessed by the accused without any valid license. The same were seized by the police and FIR was recorded. The prosecution case was sought to be proved by the said Head Constable Sin Chand PW3 and Constable Bhup Sing PW-2. No independent witness was examined to support the prosecution case. It was in these circumstances that the Court observed that the case presented a disturbing feature and held that Sin Chand, Head Constable PW. 3, being the complainant, - should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. It was observed that such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. 3, being the complainant, - should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. It was observed that such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. It is evident that in that case, PW-3 had played an active role and he was the main witness to prove the prosecution case and further there was discrepancy in the depositions of PW-2 and PW-3 and in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancy did not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. In the instant case, 5. 1. Ambika Subba was only discharging her duty as Investigating Officer. She had no personal knowledge about any factual aspect. She herself had not initiated the investigating machinery. A verbal complaint had been made to her by Gopilall Mukhia and some of the villagers, whereupon, it became her duty to register a. case under section 174 Cr. P. C. and proceed further in the case. It was on the conclusion of the D. D. case under section 174 Cr. P. C. , that she made the complaint Exhibit P-16 resulting in the recording of the formal FIR and further investigation of the case. No fault can be found with her investigating the case in the circumstances. After going through the entire evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court. No fault can be found with her investigating the case in the circumstances. After going through the entire evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court. We hold that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the following circumstances to bring home the charge against the appellant: (1) The appellant had been working as a domestic servant in the house of the deceased for about five or six months prior to the date of the occurrence; (2) The appellant got the employment with the deceased by giving his name as Milan Subba, concealing his real name, Buddhilall Subba; (3) On the date of the occurrence, that is, 20-9-1997, the appellant left the house of the deceased shortly after the departure of the deceased towards the same direction in which the deceased had gone by telling the members of the family of the deceased that he was going to collect fodder for the cattle; the appellant returned after an unusual delay and even then without bringing any fodder or little fodder and could not give any satisfactory explanation for the same; (4) When the appellant returned he was not wearing his slippers; he gave out false reason to the family members of the deceased that the slippers had broken and, therefore he had thrown them away whereas in fact, both the slippers were found at the scene of the occurrence; (5) The appellant appeared unusually nervous and restless on the date of the occurrence; he was found to be in the kitchen on 20-9-1997 at about 10. 30 p. m. when in the usual course he should not have been there; he looked shocked on seeing Meena Mukhia, PW-6 and pretended to draw water from the bucket for drinking; he also gave false reply to the query of Meena Mukhia as to why he had not gone to bed by saying that he was watching some movie on the television, whereas, there was no programme on television at that time; Meena Mukhia also noticed that the lock on the wooden box kept in the kitchen was shaking; (6) On the following day that is, 21-9-2001, the appellant left the house of the deceased by insisting that he had to collect his passport size photographs from Rishi Bazaar and that he would come back soon but, thereafter, he never came back. He was a rusted on 21-10- 1997 from the house of his brother-in-law, Jit Bahdur Rai, PW-7; (7) He falsely stated to his brother-in-law. Jit Bahadur Rai, that he was coming from Darjeeling and he was working there in a Tea Garden. He handed over a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - to Jit Bahadur Rai with the request that he should send that amount to his mother at Sakyong for Dasai festival. He also gave a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 as loan to his brother-in-law. Jit Bahadur Rai. Both these amounts were later on seized by the police vide exhibits P-6 and P-5; and (8) The key of the wooden box which was used to be kept by the deceased tagged in his trouser string was not found with the body of the deceased or in the house of the deceased. ( 12 ) THE above circumstances provide a complete chain leading to the inference of the guilt of the appellant. Circumstances are of a determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and the circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him. ( 13 ) IN the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** ---