JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The sole accused in S.C. No. 17 of 1994 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Jeypore prosecuted under Sections 394/302. IPC has questioned the validity, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence directing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story in brief as portrayed during trial is as follows. One Manik Sahu (P.W.8) had a grocery shop in grocery articles in the weekly market at Ramgiri on each Tuesday. Since Manik Sahu sustained some injuries in an accident he was undergoing treatment at Jeypore Hospital as an indoor patient, therefore, on 17.8.1-992 (Tuesday) at about 10.00 A.M. Dilip Kumar Sahu (P.W.2) and Prabhakar Sahu (not examined), who are brother and son of Manik Sahu respectively went to weekly market to sell grocery articles there. Manik Sahu had a school going daughter. His wife and father-in-law had been Jeypore to visit Munik Sahu leaving the deceased Rekhi Sahu alone in the house. At about 5.30 P.M. Dilip Sahu (P.W.2) and Prabhakar Sahu came to the house of P.W.8 from Ramgiri weekly market and knocked at the door, but it did not evoke any response. Then Prabhakar Sahu entered into the house through the back door which was then open. Both P.W.2 and his nephew Prabhakar entered into the house and found deceased Rekhi Sahu lying dead in the bed room having several bleeding injuries on her throat and face. They further found that two trunks were lying open and the almirah was damaged where some valuable articles were stored. On that day P.W.2 narrated the incident to the O.I.C. of Baipariguda police station and submitted a written report vide Ext. 3. On the basis of such report a case was registered and the Investigating Officer immediately went to the house of Manik Sahu held inquest over the dead-body of deceased Rekhi Sahu. examined some witnesses, arrested the accused-Appellant and from his possession seized some of the stolen articles and also the wearing apparels containing blood despatched the dead-body for -post mortem examination to P.H.C. Baipariguda. He also seized the blood stained cloths of the deceased and also of the Appellant and sent those clothes alongwith the knife for scientific examination and serological test through S.O.J.M. Jeypore. After completion of investigation he placed the charge-sheet against' the Appellant. 3. He also seized the blood stained cloths of the deceased and also of the Appellant and sent those clothes alongwith the knife for scientific examination and serological test through S.O.J.M. Jeypore. After completion of investigation he placed the charge-sheet against' the Appellant. 3. Prosecution in all had examined 9 witnesses apart from other documents proved as exhibits. In this case the prosecution has only based on the circumstantial evidence since there has been no direct evidence available to connect the Appellant with the crime. Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the circumstances placed against the Appellant were sufficient to convict him under Sections 394/302, IPC. 4. P.W.1 has proved the seizure of Kati (M.O.I), and also a Pidha (M.O.II) which were being used for committing such crime. He proved the seizure list, Ext. 2. But on close scrutiny of his evidence it appeared that his evidence does not help much the prosecution to connect the Appellant with the crime. From M.Os. I and II, we found, nothing has been established as none of them contained any blood stains which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. 5. Now turning to the evidence of P.W. 2, who is the informant, we found that on Friday, i.e. 4 days preceding the date of incident Manik Sahu was admitted in the hospital at Jeypore and his wife was attending to him. Durisng their absence the incident had taken place. The daughter who was residing in the house had left for the School. After P.W.2 and his nephew Prabhat returned from the weekly market, they knocked at the door, but since it did not evoke any response, Prabhakar entered into the house through the back door which was open and on entering the house Prabhakar noticed that his grand-mother was lying dead with marks of several cut injuries. He also noticed that two trunks were lying open and all the valuable articles were missing. P.W.2 then scribed the FIR with the help of an Advocate Saheb Sahu and handed it over to the O.I.C of Baipariguda police station. Practically his evidence has not been shattered by the cross-examining lawyer. Therefore, from his evidence it has transpired that there was an accident of murder on the date of occurrence. 6. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.3, we, however, gathered that P.W.3 was invited by the police at, the time of seizure. Practically his evidence has not been shattered by the cross-examining lawyer. Therefore, from his evidence it has transpired that there was an accident of murder on the date of occurrence. 6. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.3, we, however, gathered that P.W.3 was invited by the police at, the time of seizure. At that relevant time the Appellant was also present and led all of them to Maize field situated at 4 kilometres away and gave recovery of three blankets, three bundles of new cloths, an Air Bag, one torch light on which the name of Manik Sahu was inscribed, a tin Diba containing some changes some coins and two rupee notes, a golden chipa mail and a pair of gold Kan phul which were seized. After seizure of those articles P.W.9 prepared the seizure list on which he signed alongwith P.W.3 and D.W.2. There are some striking features present in this case. While in chief P.W.1 fully supports the prosecution, in cross-examination he presented a quite different version. Therefore, in this background no one can believe the statement of P.W.3 'without seeking corroboration from other evidence. It may be mentioned here that P.W.3, who is also the seizure witness, did not support the prosecution case. Then the next question comes up for consideration is that even if the statement of P.W.3 is rejected then, would the statement of D.W.2 and of the I.O. (P.W.9) regarding seizure of the articles be sufficient to prove seizure. According to us, even if P.W.3, the seizure witness, has become hostile as he did not support the prosecution case, the evidence of the I.O. and D.W.2 is so clear and clinching that a conviction can also lie against the accused. On the basis of such evidence, there is no reason why they shall implicate the accused in the crime. 7. P.W.4 has turned hostile, therefore, the prosecution had to cross-examine him u/s 154 of the Evidence Act. Even if a witness is declared hostile, yet his statement can be relied upon by the either side. But nothing has been brought out by either party to help them in any manner. 8. Turning to the evidence of P.W.5 it has transpired that on the date of incident at about 4.00 P.M. he noticed near the house of P.W.8. Even if a witness is declared hostile, yet his statement can be relied upon by the either side. But nothing has been brought out by either party to help them in any manner. 8. Turning to the evidence of P.W.5 it has transpired that on the date of incident at about 4.00 P.M. he noticed near the house of P.W.8. Manik Sahu in village Dalapur that the Appellant was proceeding towards his village with a Ganthili (bundle) in his hand. In cross-examination it is noticed that he disowned his statement and pleaded ignorance that the Appellant was found going towards his village with a bundle m his hand. Therefore, the statement of P.W.5 does not help the prosecution to implicate the Appellant with the crime. 9. P.W.7, the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased found two external injuries corresponding to the internal injuries such as cutting of jugular vein, carotid artery and trachea and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and could cause death in ordinary course of nature due to haemorrhage and shock. To a query made by the I.O. the Medical Officer had opined that the injuries could be possible by the knife. M.O.I. 10. P.W.8 is the son-in-law of the deceased. According to him on the date of occurrence he was undergoing treatment at Jeypore hospital as an indoor patient. In his absence the alleged murder of his mother-in-law had taken place. After hearing about the incident, that very night he came from Jeypore hospital and found his mother-in-law lying dead with bleeding injuries on her face and neck. One mental box containing some changes, a small Aluminium box containing some currency notes, one torch light on which his name was inscribed, one sari, two lungis, three blankets, 5/6 bundles of new clothes were stolen away from his house. The wearing pair of gold Kanphula and gold chipa mali and some other ornaments were also stolen away from his house. He has proved M.O.s I to V belonging to him. He has proved M.O.VI, a gold chipa Mali and M.O.VII, a pair of Gold Kan Phula which were found to have been stolen from the possession of the deceased. So far as his statement is concerned, there has been absolutely no attempt to shatter his evidence by cross-examination. 11. He has proved M.O.s I to V belonging to him. He has proved M.O.VI, a gold chipa Mali and M.O.VII, a pair of Gold Kan Phula which were found to have been stolen from the possession of the deceased. So far as his statement is concerned, there has been absolutely no attempt to shatter his evidence by cross-examination. 11. P. W.9 was the I.O. From his evidence it has transpired that upon receipt of the FIR he visited the spot, held inquest over the dead-body of the deceased and despatched the same for post mortem examination, collected blood stained earth and sample earth, seized the knife and Pidha, Mos. I and II respectively. He further seized one wooden Almirah having cut mark, one big trunk, one small trunk in-open condition, a small Aluminium box alongwith some other articles vide seizure list, Ext. 2. He also seized a white colour T' shirt stained with blood and blood stained lungi from the possession of the Appellant vide seizure list, Ext. 13. Those incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through the S.D.J.M., Jeypore. The Serologist in his report has opined that the lungi seized from the possession of the Appellant contained human blood of 'AB' origin which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. Even if the seizure witness had not supported the prosecution case, we are at a loss to understand as to why the I.O. will give a false story of seizure from the possession of the Appellant. Therefore, we place full reliance on the evidence of P W.9 as regards seizure of lungi from the possession of the Appellant. 12. Now coming to the seizure of the gold ornaments and other articles, we found that P.W.3 and D.W.3 have not supported the prosecution case though they were signatories to the seizure. P.W.3 supported the prosecution version in chief, but he detracted in his cross-examination and narrated a different story like D.W.2. Even though the evidence of P.W.3 and D.W.2 is worthwhile, but no reliance can be placed on their statement. Even if their testimony is excluded, then also we noticed that P.W.9 has proved the recovery of the articles which were seized at the instance of the Appellant vide Exts. 4, 5 and 15. 13. Even though the evidence of P.W.3 and D.W.2 is worthwhile, but no reliance can be placed on their statement. Even if their testimony is excluded, then also we noticed that P.W.9 has proved the recovery of the articles which were seized at the instance of the Appellant vide Exts. 4, 5 and 15. 13. Therefore, from the above discussion we noticed that the articles purported to have been stolen away from the house of P.W.8 were recovered from the possession of the Appellant in course of investigation. The clothes used by him also contained human blood which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. In this regard it is to be noted whether the prosecution is said to have brought home the charge against the accused. In a case of this nature there can be no direct evidence. In the aforesaid context, we have to consider whether the circumstances placed agains; the Appellant would be sufficient to record conviction under Sections 302/394, IPC. To arrive at such a conclusion, we rely on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (3: Supreme 589 in the case of Ezhil and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein it has be en held: The case rests purely on circumstantial evidence and the most vital circumstance to prove the case of the prosecution is the recovery of the articles belonging to and in possession of the deceased as well as the blood stained articles from the car in the exclusive possession of the accused, about which there could be no reasonable or plausible explanation by any of the accused. Since the questions very much depend upon the drawl o presumptions engrafted in Section 106 and illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, over which only there has been serious contest by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is appropriate to notice the principles governing the same, before undertaking any consideration of the justification to apply them to the facts of the case The entire case law on the subject has been extensively reviewed by this Court in a decision reported in Sanjay @ Kaka Vs. The State (NCC.T. of Delhi), authored by one of us (R.P. Sethi. The State (NCC.T. of Delhi), authored by one of us (R.P. Sethi. J.) and it was held that Courts can draw presumptions u/s 106 and illustration (a) to Section 114 the nature of evidence adduced must be seen to find among other things the important time factor'. Though no standard time limits can must be fixed to determine whether the possession is recent or otherwise, each case must be judged on its own facts and in a case where mere is no plausible explanation by the accused for lawful possession o; the articles belonging to the deceased, immediately after the murder, the Courts cannot be held to be in error in considering that murder and robbery were integral parts of the same transaction giving rise to the presumption that the Appellants not only committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of articles found in the possession of the deceased. As observed by this Court in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. 2000 (8) SCC 3821 the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilizea doctrine, admitting no process of an intelligent reasoning even when the doctrine of presumption considered to be not a rule alien to the above has become statutorily recognised and engrafted in Section 114 and other provisions of the Evidence Act. Permitting a presumption of fact, otherwise doubtful by a process of reasoning and inference from other proved facts having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case, was found necessary by the legislature to ensure a rational realistic and genuine approach while administering justice in criminal trial for arriving at the truth and there is no scope for adopting any hyper technical approach or extend undue latitudes in favour of the accused, which only tend to cause erosions in the maintenance of law and order in society otherwise essential in the larger interests' of society and mankind. We, however, find a striking feature that the Appellant has significantly failed to take the plea in his statement u/s 131. We, however, find a striking feature that the Appellant has significantly failed to take the plea in his statement u/s 131. Code of Criminal Procedure as to how the human blood appeared in his clothes which tallied with the blood group of the deceased and also he did not dispute that the articles belonged to P.W.8s mother-in-law. 14. Therefore, on the basis of the presumption raised under illustration (a' to Section 114 and also Section 106 of the Evidence Act. we have no other way but to affirm the observation of the learned-Addl. Sessions Judge. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and the conviction and sentence passed under Sections. 302/394, IPC are affirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 16. I agree.