JUDGMENT : M. Papanna, J. - Jail Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 1993 is against the judgment of Shri R.N. Biswal, Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.C. No. 4 of 1993 and Jail Criminal Appeal No. 161/95 is against judgment of Shri M.R. Behera, Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No. 4/93(A). In the former case, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, Gopia Digal under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code He sentenced him to under Sections 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life and R.I. for three years, respectively, with direction to run the sentences concurrently. In the latter case, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, Senapati Digal, undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 40 days. However, no separate penalty is imposed on him u/s 201 Indian Penal Code 2. On consent of learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, these two appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Accusation against the accused (hereinafter referred to as "appellants") is that they were habitual offenders in respect of property offences. That is why, Mehendra Digal, Grama Rakhi of village Bahadapada (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was keeping watch on them. On 10.8.1992 at about 4 P.M. the deceased was following them at village Tulirupada. The Appellants having noticed this fact, became annoyed. They assaulted the deceased in front of house of Biswa Kanhar at village Lumbrakhole. As a result, the deceased became unconscious. Then the Appellants carried him on a bhara towards Kakasuga Hill. There, they assaulted him again by means of a Gadi. As a result, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the Appellants burried his dead body in the padar (dry) land of Kaibalya Digal. Basing on the report of his nephew Bisiketan Digal (P.W. 5) a Station Diary Entry was made in Tikabali P.S. During enquiry, O.I.C., Tikabali P.S. could ascertain that the deceased was murdered by the Appellants. Basing on a plain paper F.I.R. drawn by him, he investigated into the case. In presence of Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4) the dead body was exhumed from the dry land of Kaibalya Digal. Inquest over the dead body was held. It was sent for autopsy. The accused persons (appellants) were arrested by the police. Basing on a plain paper F.I.R. drawn by him, he investigated into the case. In presence of Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4) the dead body was exhumed from the dry land of Kaibalya Digal. Inquest over the dead body was held. It was sent for autopsy. The accused persons (appellants) were arrested by the police. While in custody, on the information of Gopia Digal the weapons of offence (badi) and Phauda were recovered from Turmeric field of Biswa Kanhar. On completion of investigation, the Appellants were charge sheeted under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code 4. The accused pleaded innocence. Total denial of the allegation of the prosecution is the defence plea. Appellant Gopia Digal further set up the defence theory of enemity between him and Bisiketan Digal (P.W. 5). 5. Evidence of fifteen witnesses has been pressed into service to prove the charges against the Appellants in S.C. No. 4 of 1993. But in the midst of trial after examination of P.W. 5, Appellant Senapati Digal absconded. After he was apprehended trial of the case against him resumed in S.T. No. 4 of 1993(A). So the witnesses who have been examined in S.C. No. 4 of 1993 have also been examined on S.T. No. 4 of 1993(A) though not chronologically. 6. Defence on behalf of the Appellant Gopia Digal has examined one witness to prove the enimical relation with P.W. 5. However, no defence witness has been examined on behalf of Appellant Senapati Digal. 7. On consideration of evidence of witnesses on record, the learned trial Judges in both the cases convicted the Appellants and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that prosecution has not examined any eye witnesses to the occurrence of murder of the deceased alleged to have been caused by the Appellants. As such the learned trial Judge has committed illegality in convicting the Appellant of a serious charge of murder of the deceased. According to them, the learned trial Judge has given weightage to the evidence of P.W. 2, who was only stated to have seen the part of the occurrence. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that this is a case of circumstantial evidence which has not been fully established to prove the guilt of the Appellants. According to them, the learned trial Judge has given weightage to the evidence of P.W. 2, who was only stated to have seen the part of the occurrence. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that this is a case of circumstantial evidence which has not been fully established to prove the guilt of the Appellants. That apart no motive on the part of the Appellants for committing the murder of the deceased has been established for which the Appellants were entitled for acquittal of the charges. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has supported the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court in both the cases. 9. In view of the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are called upon to scan the evidence of the witnesses on record to see if the learned trial Judge have committed any illegality or irregularity in appreciating the evidence on record. 10. While examining evidence of witnesses on record, the learned trial Judges have observed that Supteswar Digal (P.W. 2) happened to be the only witness to the occurrence of assault on the victim. According to them P.W. 2 has seen only part of the occurrence. In view of that they have relied on circumstantial evidence which can be categorised as below: (i) Medical evidence rendered by P.W. 3 shows that death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. (ii) Motive on the part of the wrong doers to commit the crime, (iii) Whether the deceased was in the company of the Appellants at the relevant time. (iv) Recovery of M.O. I, a bamboo stick and spade on the information of the Appellants, and (v) Whether the Appellants are the real offenders. 11. In a case of murder where direct evidence is not forthcoming, the medical evidence becomes a chain in the circumstantial evidence to prove that the victim died a homicidal death. In both the cases the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy has been examined as P.W. 3 to prove post mortem report (Ext. 4). Ext. 4 indicates the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased. (i) Incised wound of size 4" x 2" bone deep just above the angle of left mandible, (ii) Punctured wound of size 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" over the left cheek. 4). Ext. 4 indicates the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased. (i) Incised wound of size 4" x 2" bone deep just above the angle of left mandible, (ii) Punctured wound of size 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" over the left cheek. (iii) Punctured wound of size 1" x 1/2" on the left eye lid. (iv) Punctured wound of size 1" x 1/2" x bone deep over the right eye brow; (v) Contused abrasion of size 4" x 3" over the right fore-head extending to pariatal region. (vi) Punctured wound of size 1" x 1/2" x bone deep over the left mastoid region. (vii) Punctured wound of size 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep adjacent to wound No. 6. (viii) Bruises of size 6" x 4" lateral to right nipple extending to auxiliary region. 12. As per medical evidence these injuries were ante mortem in nature. All the injuries except injuries No. 5 and 8 might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injuries No. 5 and 8 might have been caused by hard and blunt object like Lathi. All the injuries combindly resulted in shock and haemorrhage in the deceased causing his death. Time since death of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination was within 3 to 4 days. In ordinary course of nature the head injuries found on the victim was sufficient to cause his death. The trial Judges relied on the medical evidence to hold that the victim died homicidal death. This aspect of medical evidence having remained unchallenged we affirm the findings of the trial Judges as above. 13. The next chain in the circumstantial evidence is the motive of the wrong doers to commit the crime. The law on the subject is laid down in the case of Udaipal Singh v. The State of U.P. ( AIR 1972 SC 54 ). In the reported case, the law is well settled that in cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. The law on the subject is laid down in the case of Udaipal Singh v. The State of U.P. ( AIR 1972 SC 54 ). In the reported case, the law is well settled that in cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation, if any, of the accused, exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit, then the chain of evidence can be considered to be so complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial evidence. Motive being a relevant factor and a compelling force behind commission of the crime, it cannot be lost sight of. Motive being purely a state of mind known to the perpetrator of the crime cannot be proved by direct evidence for which we have to see what circumstances leading to such motive have been placed before the Court. We have found no materials on record to indicate that the Appellants were the habitual offenders in the locality. That apart, none of the witnesses examined for the prosecution has stated that the Gram Rakhi (deceased) was keeping watch on them for which they became annoyed and assaulted the deceased. This shows that prosecution has failed to prove motive of the Appellants to commit the crime. In our opinion, even if motive for commission of crime has not been established, it cannot be said that the Appellants have not committed murder of the deceased. For this, we have to look forward for other evidence on record. 14. One Sapteswar Digal has been examined as P.W. 2 in both the cases. On scrutiny of his evidence, we have found that he saw assault on the deceased committed by the Appellants in front of the house of one Bisa Kanhar of his village. For better appreciation of his evidence, we quote it thus: I know both the accused persons, namely, Senapati Digal and Gopia Digal. On scrutiny of his evidence, we have found that he saw assault on the deceased committed by the Appellants in front of the house of one Bisa Kanhar of his village. For better appreciation of his evidence, we quote it thus: I know both the accused persons, namely, Senapati Digal and Gopia Digal. Last year in the month of Shraban, one evening I saw both the accused persons assaulting late Mahendra Digal in front of the house of Bisa Kanhar of my village. Out of fear, I rushed to the house of my master Basu Kanhar under whom I was engaged as field servant. Mahendra Digal was lying on the ground by the time when I saw him assaulted. On the same date Mahendra Digal succumbed to the injuries. Evidence of this witness has remained unassailed during cross-examination. He is enemy to none. We do not find any reason why he would speak falsehood against the Appellants. His non-interference at the time of assault on the deceased by the Appellants does not render his evidence untrustworthy. He has of course, denied a lathi shown to him, to be the lathi used by the Appellants in assaulting the deceased. His evidence further reveals that he told the occurrence to his Master Basudev Kanhar who has been examined as P.W. 9 in both the cases. He has supported the evidence of P.W. 2 to this extent. In our considered view, P.W. 2 is a truthful witness. Reliance has been properly placed on his evidence by the learned Sessions Judges in both the cases. As such no illegality has been committed by them in accepting his evidence to arrive at a conclusion that both the Appellants assaulted the deceased by lathis indiscriminately in front of the house of one Bisa Kanhar at village Lumbarkhol. 15. No less important is the question, whether the deceased was in the company of the Appellants on the relevant date and time of occurrence. The version of P.W. 5 in both the cases shows that Kaibalya Digal and Kabi Kanhar went to his paddy field and intimated him that the Appellants after committing murder of the deceased were carrying his dead body towards Kakasuga Hill. On his information Station Diary Entry No. 222 dated 11.8.1992 (Ext. 17) was made in Tikabali P.S. By the I.O. (P.W. 15). On his information Station Diary Entry No. 222 dated 11.8.1992 (Ext. 17) was made in Tikabali P.S. By the I.O. (P.W. 15). He has also stated in his evidence that on 10.8.1992 at about 3 P.M. the deceased went to village Lumbarkhol but he did not return. We have also noticed from the statement of Basanta Kumar Sahoo, who has been examined as P.W. 12 in S.C. No. 4/93 P.W. 10 in S.T. No. 4 of 1993-A, that the deceased was in the company of the Appellants on the relevant date and time of occurrence. They were going towards village Lumbarkhol. That apart, Kabi Kanhar, who has been examined as P.W. 6 in both the cases, stated emphatically and categorically that he saw the Appellants going towards jungle carrying the dead body of the deceased. He was threatened by the Appellants Senapati Digal through a letter (Ext. 9) to the effect that he would kill him if he gives evidence against him in this case. On the evidence of P. Ws. 5,6 and that of Basant Kumar Sahoo, the learned Sessions Judges came to hold that at the material time, the deceased was in the company of the Appellants. On scrutiny of the said evidence, we do not find any infirmity therein. The learned trial Judges have correctly appreciated their evidence and we agree with the findings arrived at by them that in the evening of the date of occurrence the deceased was in the company of the Appellants. 16. Sankarsan Sahu (I.O.), who has been examined as P.W. 15 in S.C. No. 4/93 and P/W. 14 in S.T. No. 4/93-A investigated into the case by drawing a plain paper F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext. 18 in the former case and Ext. 16 in the latter. His testimony goes to indicate that during investigation, he recovered the dead body of the deceased by exhuming from the dry land of Kaibalya Digal (P.W. 7). Inquest over the dead body was held after it was duly identified by the villagers including Bisikesan Digal (P.W. 5). B.D.O., Tikabali-cum-Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4) in whose presence the dead body was exhumed corroborated the testimony of the I.O. 17. The most vital question that remains now for determination is, whether the Appellants are the real offenders. Inquest over the dead body was held after it was duly identified by the villagers including Bisikesan Digal (P.W. 5). B.D.O., Tikabali-cum-Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4) in whose presence the dead body was exhumed corroborated the testimony of the I.O. 17. The most vital question that remains now for determination is, whether the Appellants are the real offenders. In the present case, the I.O. made recovery of some incriminating materials such as one Kusa gadi (M.O.I.) on the information of the Appellant Senapati Digal and one bamboo lathi (M.O. II) and a Phauda (M.O. XI) on the information of Appellant Gopia Digal. We find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the I.O., regarding recovery and seizure of the aforesaid incriminating articles made on the strength of Appellants' statements. The evidence of the I.O. has been corroborated by P.W. 7 an independent witness from the locality. 18. On the whole, the Appellants, as revealed from the testimony of P.W. 2, assaulted the deceased. He succumbed to the injuries due to assault inflicted by the Appellants who thereafter carried the dead body on a bhara towards Kakasuga hills as witnessed by P.W. 6. Thereafter, they buried the dead body of the deceased in the dry land of Kaibalya Digal. The dead body was exhumed during investigation in presence of the Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4). All these chains in the circumstantial evidence have been fully established and lead us to an irresistible conclusion pointing to the guilt of the Appellants. In our considered view the chains in the circumstantial evidence have been so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Appellants. All these circumstances cumulatively taken together lead us to an inescapable and irresistible positive conclusion pointing only to the Appellants as the perpetrator of the crime. Even in motive for commission of the crime has not been established in the present case, it does not render the other evidence on record bearing on the guilt of the accused untrustworthy and unreliable. The defence witness (D.W. 1) examined on behalf of the Appellant, Gopia Digal, has failed to prove the theory of inimical relation between P.W. 5 and Gopia Digal. That being so, we do not place reliance on the defence evidence adduced by D.W. 1. The judgments impugned before us need not be interfered with. We uphold them in these appeals. 19. That being so, we do not place reliance on the defence evidence adduced by D.W. 1. The judgments impugned before us need not be interfered with. We uphold them in these appeals. 19. In the result, both the Jail Criminal Appeals being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed