JUDGMENT 1. - This Jail Appeal by accused appellant Supyara, who was charged and tried for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. as she alleged to have committed murder of her mother-in-law, has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemkathana, district Sikar, by which he convicted the accused appellant U/s. 304 Part II IPC and sentenced her to undergo 3 & 1/2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case unfolded during trial is that 4.7.98 one Babu Lal Meena lodged a written report (Ex.P. 3) at Police Station, Ajeetgarh, district Sikar to the effect that today at about 5.00 AM the wife of Shri Surja raised hue and cry. Thereupon, he went there and found the cloths being thrown and a box lying there. The wife of Surja disclosed that the thieves committed murder, broke the jolya and took away the said jolya with them. Babulal asked her as to where the thieves have gone. In the meantime, Kalu Ram, Chothu Ram and Richpal Ahir came there. On search, they found the mother of Surja lying dead in the house of kitchen and Khakla. She was smeared with blood. The ghaghra which the wife of Surja was wearing was also smeared with blood. Lastly, Shri Babu Lal Meena stated that only the wife of Surja has committed murder of Parli. On the basis of this report the police registered a case and started investigation. During investigation, the police prepared Panchayatnama Ex.P. 1, got conducted the post mortem, the report of post mortem examination is Ex.P. 14. On the information Ex.P. 15 and at the instance of accused the police recovered Gandasha vide recovery memo Ex.P. 5. Police also recovered Lehanga-Loongari, soil, blood stained soil vide recovery memo Ex.P. 6, Ex.P. 7, and Ex.P. 8 respectively. 3. After completion of investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimkathana who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions, Judge Sikar transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions, Judge Nimkathana. During trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused appellant u/s. 302 IPC. The learned Sessions, Judge Sikar transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions, Judge Nimkathana. During trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused appellant u/s. 302 IPC. The charge was readover to the accused, to which the pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibit as many as 17 documents. After the closer of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused was recorded. The accused in his defence did not examine any witnesses. After completion of trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant of the offence u/s. 302 IPC and while holding the accused appellant guilty of committing offence punishable u/s. 304 Part-II IPC sentenced her as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel while assailing the conviction of the accused appellant u/s. 304 Part II IPC has contended that conviction is based only on circumstantial evidence of recovery of weapon of offence stained with human blood and seizure of Ghagra-loongri of the accused appellant which were stained with human blood, but neither of the above circumstance is proved by prosecution evidence. The substantiate his above argument, the learned counsel has referred to the statements of Sunda Ram, PW. 7 and Phoola Ram PW. 6, who in their statements, have stated that Gandasa was lying near the dead body of Parli. Phoola Ram has further stated that there were not blood stains on the cloths of accused Supyar. Likewise, witness Sunda Ram has not supported the recovery of Lahanga and Loongri of accused, in this background, learned counsel contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt against the accused and she deserves to be acquitted. He has placed reliance on Kishori Lal v. State of Rajasthan (RCC 1996 voi 21 Page 134) , Amar Singh v. State of M.P. (1997 SCC (Cr.) 630 , Narain & Another v. State of Rajasthan (1990 Cr.LR. (Raj.) 636 and Ajit Bhanu Singh & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1995 Cr.LR. (Raj.) 304 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment and the findings arrived at by the learned trial court and has submitted that the circumstantial evidence in the case of clinching nature, which cannot be termed as false even though some of the prosecution witnesses do not support the case. (Raj.) 304 . 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment and the findings arrived at by the learned trial court and has submitted that the circumstantial evidence in the case of clinching nature, which cannot be termed as false even though some of the prosecution witnesses do not support the case. In support of his contention, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Bhamri @ Leele v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 480) . 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 8. As regards the circumstantial evidence available on record, the learned Public Prosecutor has mainly referred to the Statements of P.W. 1 Kalu Ram, P.W. 2 Manohar Lal. P.W. 3 Banwari, P.W. 5 Jagdish, P.W. 8 Chothu, and P.W. 9 Kalu who reached at the place of occurrence after the commission of offence. He has further referred to the recovery of Gandasa, Ex.P. 5 at the instance and on the information of the accused, recovery of blood stained cloths of deceased vide memo Ex.P. 6 and Ex.P. 9 the medical evidence. 9. It is an admitted position that the prosecution case solely rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence. 10. P.W. 1 Kalu Ram, P.W. 2 Manohar Lal, P.W. 5 Jagdish, P.W. 8 Chothu Ram and P.W. 9 Kalu have categorically stated that when they reached the house of Surja Ram, the body of deceased Parli was lying in the house. They saw blood stains on the cloths of accused Supya. P.W. 11 Prahlad Sahai seized Lahanga and Loongri vide Memo Ex.P. 6, which were found to be stained with blood. One washed Lahanga was also recovered from the house of accused. Although P.W. 6 Phoola Ram has denied the presence of blood stains on Lahanga of accused Supyar, but has admitted his signatures A to B on Ex.P. 3, wherein he has mentioned that Lahanga of Supyar was having blood stains and another Lahanga duly washed and wet was also there. Similarly, P.W. 7 Sunda Ram has admitted his signatures A to B on the seizure memos Ex.P 6 and Ex.P. 9 but has denied the seizure of Lahanga and Loongri including one more Lahanga in his presence. Similarly, P.W. 7 Sunda Ram has admitted his signatures A to B on the seizure memos Ex.P 6 and Ex.P. 9 but has denied the seizure of Lahanga and Loongri including one more Lahanga in his presence. As such these statements cannot be accepted as true. However, from the statements of P.W. 1 Kalu Ram, P.W. 2 Mohan Lal, P.W. 5 Jagdish, P.W. 8 Chotu, P.W. 9 Kallu and P.W. 11, Prahlad Sahay, Investigating Officer, it is well established that Supyar was wearing Lahanga and Loongri, which had blood stains and that another Lahanga was washed and set. It has also come in the statements of these witnesses that Surja Ram, husband of accused had gone to Dudhawas and the accused was all alone in her house along with her mother-in-law deceased Parli. Accused Supyar has tried to explain the incident while referring to these four witnesses and has stated that these four thieves and entered the house and one box was also lying in the field out side her house. But neither report of theft was lodged nor she was stated these facts in her statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Shri Prahlad Sahay, in his cross-examination, has denied the fact of lodging of report regarding commission of theft in the house of Parli. 11. Shri Prahlad Sahay P.W. 11 has arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.P. 14. Accused Supyar gave information Ex.P. 15 and on her informance and at her instance Gandasa was recovered. P.W. 6 Phoola Ram and P.W. 7 Sunda Ram have stated that Gandasa was lying near the dead body of Parli. As stated above, Sunda Ram has admitted his signatures on Ex.P. 5 recovery memo of Gandasa. Likewise, the fact of lying Gandasa near the dead body has not been mentioned in the report Ex.P. 3 lodged by Phoola Ram, but he has admitted his signatures A to B on Ex.P. 3. Thus there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W. 11 Shri Prahlad Sahay and hence the recovery of Gandasa on the information and at the instance of accused from her house is well proved. 12. The F.S.L. report, Ex.P. 17 indicates that on serological examination of blood smeared soil, the Lahanga seized vide memo Ex.P. 9, Lahanga and Loongri seized vide Ex.P. 6 and Gandasi seized vide memo Ex.P. 5 were found to be stained with human blood. 12. The F.S.L. report, Ex.P. 17 indicates that on serological examination of blood smeared soil, the Lahanga seized vide memo Ex.P. 9, Lahanga and Loongri seized vide Ex.P. 6 and Gandasi seized vide memo Ex.P. 5 were found to be stained with human blood. The blood found on these articles was of O group. The recovery of Gandasi was made on the information and at the instance of accused soon after her arrest. The accused appellant has failed to explain the present of blood on the cloths. The clothes of the accused and the Gandasi recovered on the information and at her instance from her house, a place\which is not accessible to public, were found to be stained with human blood of O group and the same O group blood was also found on the blood smeared soil. P.W. 2 Dr. Gauri Shanker Sharma who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Parli found as many as 7 injuries on various pats of her body, maximum of the size of 7"x3"x bone deep. He opined that the cause of death was shock caused by injury to carotid vessels. 13. The evidence referred to above proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of occurrence, accused appellant Supyar and her mother-in-law Parli (deceased) were all alone in the house and after the incident, the accused was found wearing blood stained clothes and her another Lahanga was found washed and wet. Further the weapon of offence used in commission of offence i.e. Gandasi was recovered at the instance and on the information of accused from her house, which is not accessible to the public. All these articles including blood smeared soil were found stained with human blood of 'O group. The accused would not explain the presence of human blood on all these articles. The incised wounds on the neck and other parts of the body resulted in death due to hemorrhage, shock and cutting of carotid vessel. 14. It is settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on reliable circumstantial evidence. The accused would not explain the presence of human blood on all these articles. The incised wounds on the neck and other parts of the body resulted in death due to hemorrhage, shock and cutting of carotid vessel. 14. It is settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on reliable circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence has laid down five goolden principles, which constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) , which reads as under: "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between may be proved and must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) where the following observations were made : Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between may be that must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) The should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonably ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 15. I have carefully perused the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and in my view the same are not applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. From the above discussion, it is fully established that the prosecution has been able to prove guilt against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and in my opinion all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and do not suffer from any infirmity or lacuna. I am fortified in my view with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shazad (Supra). I also find support from the case cited by the learned Public Prosecutor in Bhamri @ Leele (Supra) wherein, the conviction of the accused u/s. 302 IPC was confirmed relying on the circumstantial evidence of recovery of weapon of offence at the instance and on the information of accused, the recovery of cloths of accused and the deceased, which all were found containing blood of A Group. 17. Before parting with the case I would like to observe that in the present case, the learned trial Court without assigning any reason has convicted the accused u/s. 304 Part-II instead of Section 302 IPC. The State has also not filed any appeal against acquittal/or for enhancement of sentence. Therefore, this Court has not alternative, but to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 18. The result of the above discussions that this appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******