R. C. PANDEY, J. Accused Maddoo was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki for having committed murder of his wife in Sessions Trial No. 584 of 1998. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 22-6-2001 found the accused appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of payment of fine, three months further R. I. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as narrated by complainant Abdul Bari, PW-5 is that his daughter Salma was married with accused appellant. Formerly, accused Maddoo used to live in village Dhanni-Ka-Purwa, PS. Dewa, district Barabanki along with his wife Salma. Subsequently, Maddoo, accused appellant left the village and started living in a rented house in Qasba Dewa in the house of one Majid tailor. Formerly, relations between Maddoo and Salma were cordial, but subsequently there arose some dispute between them and accused appellant Maddoo wanted to divorce Salma. A son was born from the wedlock and the age of the son was about 1 1/2 years at the time of the incident. Ten days before the said incident resulting in the murder of Salma, a Panchayat was held where it was agreed that accused appellant will properly maintain Salma and will not quarrel with Salma. Thereafter, both of them started residing together. Ten days after the Panchayat, complainant received information on 25-2-1998 at about 8. 00 a. m. from one Qurban Ali, P. W. 1 that murder of his daughter has been committed. On this information, complainant Abdul Bari visited the house of the accused appellant and found that dead-body of his daughter was lying on the cot. Her throat was found cut from the front. The appellant along with his son was not found and had absconded from the house. The entire household goods were found intact. The complainant got prepared written report Ext. Ka-3 at the spot from one Aqeel Ahmad of his village and handed over the same at the police station at about 2. 00 p. m. on the basis of which chik FIR dated 25-2-1998, Ext. Ka-4, was prepared and a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and necessary entry in the G. D. was made, copy of which is Ext. Ka-5. 3. 00 p. m. on the basis of which chik FIR dated 25-2-1998, Ext. Ka-4, was prepared and a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and necessary entry in the G. D. was made, copy of which is Ext. Ka-5. 3. Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam Sharma, PW. 6 was present at the police station at the time of registration of the case and took over the investigation. He visited the spot along with S. I. Shambhoo Dayal Chaudhary and got prepared Panchayatnama, Ext. Ka-6 and other papers. He sent the dead-body for post-mortem through constables Paramhans Ram and Ram Bachan Singh along with necessary papers and also prepared Fards relating to plain and blood stained earth Ext. Ka-13 and other articles. On 28-2-1998, on the information of Mukhbir, the investigating officer arrested accused appellant at about 5. 30 a. m. from the tempo stand. Accused appellant was apprehended along with his son 1 1/2 years old by him in the presence of witnesses P. W. 2 and P. W. 4. The accused appellant disclosed that he would get the knife recovered with the help of which murder of Salma was committed. In the presence of witnesses accused appellant got recovered from the shrubs in the courtyard of his house knife, alleged to have been used for murder of Salma, blood stained shirt, which accused was wearing at the time of commission of said crime. Necessary Fard Ext. 2 regarding recovery of knife and shirt was prepared at the spot and the recovered articles were sealed. Necessary information was sent to the family members of the accused appellant in his village Dhanni-ka-Purwa. The son of the accused was handed over to his Mausa on the request of the accused. The copy of said Fard was handed over to the accused appellant containing the signatures of accused appellant and two witnesses; Rafeeq, P. W. 2 Yaseen, P. W. 4 besides other witnesses who were present at the time of the arrest. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses. Site plan regarding place of incident, Ext. Ka-12 and site plan regarding place of recover of blood stained knife and shirt was also prepared. The articles recovered on the pointing out of accused appellant and other articles recovered from the dead-body and the spot were sent for chemical examination by the investigating officer. After completing other formalities, finally charge-sheet Ext. Site plan regarding place of incident, Ext. Ka-12 and site plan regarding place of recover of blood stained knife and shirt was also prepared. The articles recovered on the pointing out of accused appellant and other articles recovered from the dead-body and the spot were sent for chemical examination by the investigating officer. After completing other formalities, finally charge-sheet Ext. Ka-16 was submitted against the accused appellant. 4. Post-mortem on the dead-body of Salma was conducted by Dr. P. C. Dubey, PW-3 along with Dr. D. R. Singh on 26-2-1998 at about 3. 30 p. m. At the time of post-mortem, the following anti-mortem injuries were found by the doctor on the person of deceased Salma: - (1) incised wound 16 cms x 5 cm on the front of neck just below the chin, 1 cm below right ear and 4 cms below the left ear. The wound was backbone deep. The trachea, esophagus, muscles and other tissues and vessels were found cut. The cause of death was on account of shock and heamorrhage as a result of injury. The doctor also stated that death of Salma sometime in the night of 24/25-2-1998 was possible on account of said injury. The doctor further stated that this injury was possible from a knife. He also stated that this injury was also possible from a sharp edged weapon like a Banka. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The accused appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC. To which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution in all examined six witnesses; Qurban Ali as PW. 1, Rafeeq Warsi as PW. 2 Dr. P. C. Dubey who conducted the post-mortem as PW. 3, Mohd Yaseen as PW. 4, complainant Abdul Bari as PW. 5 and the investigating officer Radhey Shyam Sharma as PW. 6. The formal proof of Chik FIR Ext. Ka-4 and its G. D. entry Ext. Ka-5 was dispensed with from the side of the accused appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused in defence. For the first time during cross-examination of complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 it was suggested from the side of the accused that a dacoity took place at the house of Salma and the dacoits after looting property also committed murder of Salma. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused in defence. For the first time during cross-examination of complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 it was suggested from the side of the accused that a dacoity took place at the house of Salma and the dacoits after looting property also committed murder of Salma. It was further stated that in the night of occurrence he was not present and had gone to Budhawal Sugar Mill and he received information there on which he came to his house. 6. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. After considering all oral and documentary evidence on record against the accused appellant, the trial Court found the accused appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 6-A. Feeling aggrieved from said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by accused appellant from jail. 7. We have heard Sri R. K. Dwivedi, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned State Counsel and have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and statement of accused appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and the judgment and order passed by the learned lower Court. The submission of learned Counsel for appellant is that since case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not been able to establish from the evidence to conclusively connect the accused with the commission of said crime and the learned trial Court erred in holding the accused guilty of the charge and in convicting him. On the other hand, the submission of learned State Counsel was that chain of circumstances was complete to connect the accused with the commission of said crime and the learned trial Court rightly held the accused appellant guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced him as the murder took place inside the house of the accused appellant, and blood stained knife and blood stained shirt of accused was recovered on the pointing out of accused from the courtyard of his house. 8. 8. After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, we are also of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record which beyond doubt conclusively goes to connect the accused appellant with the commission of said crime and the learned lower Court rightly held the accused appellant guilty of the charge, and consequently, this appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed for the reasons given below. 9. Now we proceed to discuss the circumstantial evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution against the accused appellant. 10. PW. 1 Qurban Ali, who is the neighbour of the accused appellant and is also relation of accused appellant as well as of complainant stated that one to two moths prior to the said incident, the accused appellant along with his wife Salma started living in the house of Majid tailor near the house of Fakirey Chaudhary in his locality. He also stated that prior to the incident of murder, a Panchayat was held as accused appellant wanted to divorce his wife Salma. In the said Panchayat, a compromise was reached between the parties and both continued living together. After 8 to 10 days of the said Panchayat, he received information that murder of Salma has been committed and on this information he visited the house of accused appellant and found Salma lying dead in her house on the cot. Her neck was found cut. He accordingly sent information to complainant regarding murder of his daughter. It was also categorically stated by this witness that when he visited the spot, he only found dead-body of Salma and neither her husband, accused appellant Maddoo, nor his son aged 1 1/2 years was found at the spot and accused appellant Maddoo had taken away his son along with him. In his cross-examination the witness stated that the incident of murder did not take place in his presence. He heard about the commission of murder from other persons in the morning on 25-2-1998 and thereafter he visited the house of accused appellant. The fact that 8 to 10 days prior to the alleged incident of murder, a Panchayat was held in connection with dispute between accused appellant and deceased Salma, has not been challenged from the side of the accused. The fact that 8 to 10 days prior to the alleged incident of murder, a Panchayat was held in connection with dispute between accused appellant and deceased Salma, has not been challenged from the side of the accused. The fact that 8 to 10 days after the said Panchayat, murder of Salma was committed and at that time neither the accused appellant nor his son was found on the spot, has also not been challenged. The witness has further categorically stated that he informed the complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 regarding murder of Salma. This fact has also not been challenged. He denied the defence suggestion that he did not visit the house of Salma in the morning of 25-2-1998. The statement of this witness, in our opinion, was rightly believed by the learned trial Judge and we are also of the view that the statement of this witness is wholly truthful and reliable. The above statement of Qurban Ali, PW. 1 clearly goes to establish the following circumstances against the accused appellant: - (a) The accused appellant was living with Salma and his son in the rented house of Majid Darji in Qasba of P. S. Dewa near the house of this witness; (b) It is established that the accused wanted to divorce Salma on account of some dispute regarding which a Panchayat was held eight to ten days prior to the incident of murder; (c) It is also established that a compromise was reached in the the Panchayat which was held eight to ten days before the incident; (d) It is also established that after the said Panchayat, both of them were living together in the said hose in which Salma was found murdered; (e) It is also established that in the morning on 25-2-1998, dead-body of Salma lying on a cot was found and at that time the accused appellant and his won were not found at the spot and was absconding; (f) It is also established that information was given by this witness to complainant Abdul Bari and no information about this murder was either given to this witness or to the complainant who was father of deceased and father-in-law of accused appellant. (g) From the evidence, it is also established that this witness was relation of the accused appellant and of complainant also and no information was given by the accused appellant to him that a dacoity had taken place and during the course of dacoity, this murder of Salma was committed; (h) There is also nothing in the statement of this witness to suggest that the accused appellant used to work in Budhwal Sugar Mill and had gone to work in said Budhwal Sugar Mill in the night of 24/25-2- 1998 and was not present at the house; (i) There is also nothing to indicate that accused appellant was present at his house when Panchayatnama and other papers were prepared; (j) There is also nothing to show that that accused appellant was present at the time when post-mortem on the dead-body of Salma was conducted; (k) There is also nothing to indicate that the accused appellant participated in the burial of the deceased, who was his wife. (l) There was also motive for the accused to commit murder of Salma as he failed to get rid off from Salma as per settlement in the Panchayat that took place eight to ten days before the incident; (m) There was nothing to suggest that when this witness entered the house of accused, he found household goods scattered or looted to indicate commission of murder by dacoits; (n) There is also nothing in the statement or the cross-examination of this witness to establish that there was any kind of enmity between him and complainant on one hand and the accused appellant on the other and as such there was no reason for this witness or complaint to have falsely deposed against the accused appellant; and (o) Had there been any dacoity with murder, then in that case report must have been lodged by appellant at the police station and he would not have absconded from the spot with his 1 1/2 years old son. All these facts and circumstances also find full support from the testimony of complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5. 11. Abdul Bari, PW. 5 is admittedly father of the deceased Salma and father-in-law of the accused appellant. He stated that accused appellant Maddoo and Salma formally used to reside in village Dhanni- Ka-Purwa and subsequently Maddoo shifted to Qasba Dewa and started living in the house of Majid Darji as tenant. 5. 11. Abdul Bari, PW. 5 is admittedly father of the deceased Salma and father-in-law of the accused appellant. He stated that accused appellant Maddoo and Salma formally used to reside in village Dhanni- Ka-Purwa and subsequently Maddoo shifted to Qasba Dewa and started living in the house of Majid Darji as tenant. He further stated that two months prior to said incident, some dispute arose between Salma and her husband accused appellant Maddoo due to which the accused appellant wanted to divorce Salma. He further stated that a son was born from their wedlock who was aged about 1 1/2 years. About ten days before the said incident of murder, a Panchayat was held in this connection and a compromise was reached. It was also stated that in the rented house, only Maddoo was living along with his wife and son and no other person resided in said house. In the morning on 25-2-1988 at about 8 a. m. he received information regarding murder of his daughter Salma. It is also clear from the testimony of this witness that no information was given to him about this murder and dacoity. On receiving this information, he reached the house of his daughter and found the dead-body of Salma lying on the cot in the room. The throat of Salma from the front was found cut. Accused Maddoo as well as his son were found absent as Maddoo had absconded along with his son from the spot. The entire household goods were found intact. He also stated that he got written report prepared at the spot and handed over the same at the police station. It was also stated that adjacent to the room of Salma, there was the courtyard and other rooms, but there was no other occupant in the said house. He totally denied the defence suggestion regarding commission of dacoity at the house of Salma and murder of Salma by the dacoits. The above statement of complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 finds full support from the testimony of Qurban Ali, PW. 1 and also finds support from the medical evidence on record and also from the FIR which was lodged promptly by this witness after getting the information of murder. Admittedly, the complainant is father of deceased Salma and father-in-law of accused appellant Maddoo. 5 finds full support from the testimony of Qurban Ali, PW. 1 and also finds support from the medical evidence on record and also from the FIR which was lodged promptly by this witness after getting the information of murder. Admittedly, the complainant is father of deceased Salma and father-in-law of accused appellant Maddoo. There is nothing in the entire testimony of this witness to show that there was any kind of enmity between the complainant and accused appellant who was son-in-law of this witness. There was no reason for the complainant to have falsely lodged report regarding commission of murder of Salma by accused appellant. No suggestion was made to this witness from the side of the accused appellant to show that the accused appellant used work in Budhwal Sugar Mill and had gone to Sugar Mill in the night of 24/25-2-1998. The statement of the witness on all material aspects regarding holding of Panchayat 8-10 days before the murder, absence of accused appellant with his son at the time of visit of complainant at the spot and the fact that entire household goods were found intact, has not been challenged. There was also nothing to suggest that accused was present at the spot when the police reached the spot or when Panchayatnama and other papers were prepared. There is also nothing to suggest that the accused appellant participated in the burial of his wife after the dead-body was handed over after post mortem. The fact that there was some dispute between Salma and accused and accused wanted to divorce her, in which accused appellant failed due to the settlement in Panchayat and to get rid off from Salma this crime was committed by appellant. In these circumstance there was also motive for appellant to commit this murder. 12. There is also nothing to indicate as to under what circumstances no report of any kind was lodged by accused appellant at the police station regarding murder of his wife and regarding the alleged dacoity at his house in the night of 24/25-2-1998. In these circumstance there was also motive for appellant to commit this murder. 12. There is also nothing to indicate as to under what circumstances no report of any kind was lodged by accused appellant at the police station regarding murder of his wife and regarding the alleged dacoity at his house in the night of 24/25-2-1998. In the circumstances mentioned above, the following strong and clinching circumstances emerge from the testimony of this witness: - (a) The accused appellant was the husband of deceased Salma; (b) Some dispute had arisen between them and the accused appellant wanted to divorce Salma regarding which a Panchayat was held eight to ten days before the incident of murder; (c) It is established that in the Panchayat, compromise was reached and both of them were advised to live together; (d) The murder took place in the house occupied by accused appellant. (The dead-body of Salma was found on a cot in the room under the occupancy of accused appellant. (e) The accused appellant was found absent from the house along with the minor child aged about 1 1/2 years. This circumstance shows that after commission of the crime in the night of 24/25-2-1998 the accused appellant absconded along with his son from his house and for this reason accused appellant was not found at the spot when the complainant visited the house; when the investigation officer visited the house and Panchayatnama and other papers were prepared and the accused appellant also did not participate in the burial or cremation of the dead-body of Salma. The conduct of the accused appellant was most unnatural in the circumstances mentioned above. Murder of his wife was committed. Instead of lodging any report of alleged dacoity with murder, he left the spot with his son and absconded and did not lodge any report at the police station for the reasons best known to the accused appellant nor he gave any information to complainant or any other person of his village. 13. From the statement of this witness and other evidence on record it is also not established that a dacoity had taken place at the house of Salma and the dacoits committed the murder of Salma during the course of dacoity. 13. From the statement of this witness and other evidence on record it is also not established that a dacoity had taken place at the house of Salma and the dacoits committed the murder of Salma during the course of dacoity. This defence theory cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the case and if this crime would have been committed by the dacoits, as suggested to the complainant, then in that case there would have been marks of blood on the clothes of the minor child aged about 1 1/2 year; the minor child would have been found at the spot by the side of Salma on the bed; and FIR regarding commission of this crime by dacoits would have been promptly lodged by the accused appellant at the police station. All the above circumstances along with the conduct of the accused clearly go to establish that this crime was committed by the accused appellant and none else. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court rightly believed the testimony of this witness and rightly came to the conclusion that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence beyond all doubt to connect the accused appellant with the commission of said crime. The submission of learned Counsel for the accused appellant that there were contradictions between the testimony of Qurban Ali, PW. 1 and the testimony of complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 and the FIR and in these circumstances, testimony of both these witnesses was not worthy of reliance, cannot be accepted. We find no force in the above submission of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant. The evidence of these two witnesses is not only wholly truthful, it also inspires full confidence in our minds. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are illiterate village persons and their statement was being recorded after three years of the alleged incident. In such a situation, contradictions in their statements is natural and this circumstance also goes to show that they are not tutored one and their testimony, in the circumstances, is wholly credible and from their testimony the chain of circumstances only lead to the conclusion that this crime was committed by the accused appellant and none else. In such a situation, contradictions in their statements is natural and this circumstance also goes to show that they are not tutored one and their testimony, in the circumstances, is wholly credible and from their testimony the chain of circumstances only lead to the conclusion that this crime was committed by the accused appellant and none else. In the case of Sukhdev Yadav and others v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC (Cri) 1016, it was held by the Honble Apex Court, "there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishments. Sometimes there is a deliberate attempt to offer the exaggerated evidence and sometime the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better in the witness-box detail out an exaggerated account. " No doubt, complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 and Qurban Ali, PW. 1 are relations of Salma as well as of accused appellant Maddoo, but that alone will not be a ground to discard their testimony. We have closely scrutinized the evidence of these witnesses and we find that there are no material contradictions in their testimony so as to compel us to discard their testimony in the circumstances of the case enumerated above. 14. As per evidence furnished by Rafeeq, PW 2, murder of Salma took place about three years before his statement was recorded and this murder of Salma was committed inside the house of accused appellant which was occupied by the accused appellant and Salma as tenant. Three days after the said incident of murder, in the presence of Yaseen, Aqeel and others, blood stained knife and blood stained shirt of accused appellant was recovered by the police at the instance of the accused appellant on 28-2-1998 from the shrubs in the courtyard of said house. He also stated in his cross-examination that necessary Fard Ext. Ka-2 was prepared on the spot and the witness proved his signatures on the said Fard. No doubt this witness was declared hostile but from the above statement of the witnesses, it is clear that three days after the incident i. e. on 28-2-1998 in the presence of witnesses, blood stained knife and blood stained shirt was recovered by the police from the courtyard of the house occupied by the accused appellant regarding which necessary Fard was prepared. It is also established that at the time of incident accused was living in the said house with his family and murder of Salma was committed inside the said house. This circumstance clearly goes to show that the recovery was made on the pointing out of the accused appellant which finds support from the testimony of Yaseen, PW. 4 as also from the testimony of the investigating officer Radhey Shyam Sharma, PW. 6. 15. Mohd. Yaseen, PW. 4, who is also witness of Fard recovery Ext. Ka-2, has stated that about three years before, in the morning of 28-2-1998 at 5. 30 a. m. , the police had arrested a man from the crossing near the tempo stand and he had disclosed his name as Maddoo, who on enquiry had also stated that he had committed murder of his wife and he can get the knife used in the commission of the crime, recovered. On this information this witness along with the investigating officer and other witnesses visited the house of accused appellant and on the pointing out of accused appellant, from the shrubs in the courtyard, a blood stained knife and blood stained shirt of accused appellant was recovered regarding which Fard Ext. Ka-2 was prepared and the recovered articles were duly sealed at the spot. In his cross-examination, the witness had stated that Fard was partly prepared at the spot and was partly prepared at the police station. This statement of witness appears to be due to some confsion as P. W. 2 and I. O. P. W. 6 have clearly stated that fard Ext. Ka-2 was prepared at the spot and recovered articles were duly sealed at the spot. He also stated that his signature was not obtained on a blank paper by the Investigating Officer. He denied the suggestion that he was a professional police witness. He also denied the suggestion that the incriminating articles had actually not been recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. From the testimony of this witness it is established that the accused appellant was arrested in the morning. At 5. 30 a. m. after three days of the incident of murder. It is also established that accused appellant was arrested by the police on the information of Mukbir in the morning at about 5. From the testimony of this witness it is established that the accused appellant was arrested in the morning. At 5. 30 a. m. after three days of the incident of murder. It is also established that accused appellant was arrested by the police on the information of Mukbir in the morning at about 5. 30 p. m. and besides this witness, other witnesses were also present when the accused appellant disclosed that he can get the knife recovered which was used in the commission of the said crime. It is also established that necessary Fard regarding recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained shirt was prepared and recovered articles were sealed at the spot. There is nothing in the entire cross-examination of this witness to show that the witness was deposing against the accused under the influence of the police or that he was a professional police witness. We are of the view that statement of this witness is wholly truthful and the learned trial Court rightly believed the testimony of this witness. The alleged contradictions in the statement of Rafeeq, PW. 2 and Yaseen, PW. 4 regarding preparation of Fard Ext. Ka-2 are totally immaterial as according to Rafeeq, PW. 2 the entire Fard was prepared at the spot and thereafter signatures of the witnesses were obtained and this further finds support from the testimony of Investigating Officer, Radhey Shyam Sharma, PW. 6. 16. From the above statement the following circumstances emerge: - (a) The accused was absconding from the spot after the incident along with his minor child; (b) The appellant was arrested by the police in the morning of 28-2-1998 at 5. 30 a. m. along with his son and in the presence of witnesses, he was brought to his house and on his pointing out, blood stained knife and his blood stained shirt was recovered. (c) The fact that he was arrested by the police in the morning of 28-2-1998 along with his minor son aged about 1 1/2 years and the fact that he was brought to the house along with witnesses and blood stained knife and his blood stained shirt was recovered in the presence of witnesses; necessary fard was prepared, has not been challenged or disputed from the side of the accused appellant. There was also nothing in the cross-examination of P. W. 4 or P. W. 6 to show that blood stained shirt recovered on 28-2- 1998 was not of accused appellant. All these circumstance also goes to connect the appellant with the commission of said crime and none else beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. In the case of State Government of N. C. T. of Delhi v. Sunil and another, 2001 SCC (Cri) 248, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that in a case of recovery of article on the basis of statement made by accused before the police, seizure memo need not be attested by any independent witness and mere absence of independent witness when investigating officer recorded the statement of the accused and the article was recovered pursuant thereto is not sufficient ground to discard his evidence. It was also held that evidence of police officer regarding the recovery at the instance of the accused should ordinarily be believed and it is for the accused to show that such evidence is unreliable. It was also held by the Honble Apex Court that official act of police should be presumed to be regularly performed. In the circumstance, it is for the accused to show that such evidence is unreliable. Applying the above proposition of law to the facts of the present case, even if the testimony of Rafeeq, P. W. 2, who has been declared hostile, is ignored, there is ample evidence to establish that accused appellant was arrested by the Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam Sharma, P. W. 6 on 28-2-1998 at 5. 30 a. m. along with his 1 1/2 years old son and was brought to his house by the police and in the presence of witnesses, on the pointing out of the accused appellant, blood stained knife alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime and blood stained shirt of accused appellant, was recovered and necessary Fard Ext. Ka-2 was prepared. The fact that the minor child was given in Supurdagi of Jalaluddin relation of accused, has also not been challenged. The recovered blood stained shirt was of accused and this fact was also not challenged in cross-examination. 18. Ka-2 was prepared. The fact that the minor child was given in Supurdagi of Jalaluddin relation of accused, has also not been challenged. The recovered blood stained shirt was of accused and this fact was also not challenged in cross-examination. 18. In view of the case law referred to above in this regard, the testimony of investigating officer Radhey Shyam Sharma, P. W. 6, whose testimony has been referred to above, also goes to establish that on the information of Mukhbir, he arrested accused-appellant in the morning of 28-2-1998 at 5. 30 a. m. along with his 1 1/2 years old son and in the presence of witnesses he brought the accused-appellant to his house and at the instance of accused appellant blood stained knife and blood stained shirt of accused- appellant were recovered from the shrubs in the courtyard of the house and necessary Fard Ext. Ka-2 was prepared and the recovered articles were duly sealed, finds full support and we feel that there is nothing in the entire cross-examination of this witness also to disbelieve his testimony. We are also of the view that after close scrutiny, the learned trial Judge rightly believed the testimony of this witness regarding the recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained shirt. The defence theory that all the formalities had been completed at the police station cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the case and there was no reason for all these witnesses to have falsely implicated the accused appellant in the said crime. All the recovered articles including the blood stained knife and blood stained shirt were produced in Court by I. O. P. W. 6 and was sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. Ka-17 was received which shows that human blood was found on all the articles and from the articles which were recovered from the dead-body of Salma. The mere fact that in the report, opinion regarding blood-group was not given, was not fatal to the prosecution case considering the overall clinching circumstances connecting the accused appellant with the said crime. In such a case, cumulative effect of all the circumstances is to be seen and failure to explain one of such circumstance would not be fatal to the prosecution case. See Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju alias Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 SCC. (Cri) 1082. 19. In such a case, cumulative effect of all the circumstances is to be seen and failure to explain one of such circumstance would not be fatal to the prosecution case. See Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju alias Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 SCC. (Cri) 1082. 19. As already mentioned above, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, the murder of daughter of complainant Abdul Bari, P. W. 5 took place inside the house of accused appellant. It is established from the evidence that after the commission of the crime, the accused appellant absconded along with his minor child aged 1-1/2 years old and was not present when complainant reached the spot. Three days after the murder of Salma, accused appellant was arrested on 28-2-1998 at 5. 30 a. m. alongwith his minor son 1 1/2 years old by the Investigating Officer and his son was given in Supurdagi of Jalaluddin. The entire household articles were found intact and no report of any kind was lodged at the police station by accused appellant regarding this incident. No where during cross-examination of Qurban Ali P. W. 1 and Abdul Bari P. W. 5 it was suggested that accused-appellant was either present at the time of panchayatnama or at the time of burial of the deceased. No village person has ever come forward to establish the presence of the accused appellant on the above two occasions. All these incriminating circumstances were put in the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and the accused appellant failed to explain these incriminating circumstances in his statement under Section 315 Cr. P. C. The purpose of Section 313 Cr. P. C. is to provide to the accused an opportunity of explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. Further, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when the case rests on circumstantial evidence, failure of the accused to offer any satisfactory explanation for his possession of the stolen property, though not an incriminating circumstance by itself, would yet enable an inference being raised against him because the fact being in the exclusive knowledge of the accused, if was for him to have offered an explanation which he failed to do and this situation also supplies the missing link for completing the chain of circumstantial evidence. See Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan; 2002 SCC. (Cri) 247. 20. See Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan; 2002 SCC. (Cri) 247. 20. It is well settled that incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, if any, not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. have to be completely excluded from consideration. Here in the present case, the entire incriminating circumstances appearing from the prosecution evidence were put to the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and his only answer was "yeh GALAT HAI. " No explanation at all was furnished by the witness either in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and his only answer was "yeh GALAT HAI. " No explanation at all was furnished by the witness either in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. nor during the statement of witness in cross-examination which was necessary considering the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The submission of learned Counsel for appellant that from the evidence adduced by prosecution, accused cannot be connected with the commission of this crime has no merit and cannot be accepted and the defence theory put by accused was apparently false. Considering provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, it was for the accused to explain each and every circumstance connecting him with the said crime as they were especially within his knowledge. More over the defence plea raised by accused was totally false and does not find any support from any circumstance or evidence. Who gave the information is not disclosed. At what time information was received, at what time he reached the spot has also not been disclosed. Had it been correct he must have disclosed all this to his relations and other persons of village. The defence plea was totally false in the circumstances of case and it further goes to connect the accused with the commission of this crime; and it further goes to establish the presence of accused in the night of occurrence and further establishes that after the commission of crime he disappeared from spot with minor child and did not lodge any report at the police station. 21. 21. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that in view of all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, incriminating circumstances which have been proved by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence, establish beyond all reasonable doubt that murder of Salma was committed by the accused appellant in the night of 24/25-2-1998 and the learned trial Court has rightly held the accused appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC and this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal fails. Conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed. The accused is in Jail and shall remain in Jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. Appeal dismissed. .