JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Bundi bearing Sessions Case No.18/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated July 12, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Under section 302 Indian Penal Code : To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for One Month. Under section 450 Indian Penal Code : To suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days. Under section 364 Indian Penal Code : To suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days. Under section 201 Indian Penal Code : To suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. IT is the prosecution case that one Kalu, Chowkidar in the office of Agriculture Extension Bundi (now dead) who used to stay on duty at night in the office premises, when found missing under mysterious circumstances, informant Ramesh Chand Jain, Assistant Director submitted a written report on July 15, 2000 at 7.00 am at Police Station Kotwali Bundi. On the basis of said report a case under section 456/364 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation it was revealed that Kalu was star witness in a criminal case registered against Vinay D. Nagar (appellant) and others under Sections 365, 364, 328, 342 and 323 Indian Penal Code. The allegation against appellant in that case was that he along with his other companions abducted a child Sonu on July 7, 2000 and kept Sonu in the office where Kalu was posted as Chowkidar. Finding Sonu in the office at night in an unconscious state Kalu became suspicious. Since appellant was a clerk in the office of Agricultural Extension and Kalu has seen him with abducted child, the Investigating Officer got the statement of Kalu under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code recorded and approached the Magistrate to on July 12, 2000 to record his statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate directed to produce Kalu on July 17, 2000. Learned Magistrate directed to produce Kalu on July 17, 2000. But before Kalu could testify before the Magistrate, he was abducted and killed in the intervening night of July 14 and 15, 2000. Dead body of Kalu was found in a kund on July 19, 2000. Post-Mortem on the dead body was performed, the appellant was arrested and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Bundi. Charges under Sections 364, 450, and 302 Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses and got exhibited 53 documents. In the explanation under Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. 3. Learned trial Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of definitive tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 4. A close look at the impugned judgment demonstrates that the learned trial Judge took into consideration the following circumstances in convicting and sentencing the appellant: (i) Appellant had motive to kill the deceased. In an abduction case of child Sonu, deceased was important witness and in his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code , deceased stated that appellant took Sonu in the office in the night of July 7, 2000 in an unconscious state where the deceased was on duty as Chowikdar. The Police approached Magistrate on July 12, 2000 and July 17, 2000 was fixed for recording the statement of the deceased under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. But before the deceased could testify, he was abducted and killed in the intervening night of July 14 and 15. The Police approached Magistrate on July 12, 2000 and July 17, 2000 was fixed for recording the statement of the deceased under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. But before the deceased could testify, he was abducted and killed in the intervening night of July 14 and 15. (ii) Appellant was clerk in the same office where the deceased was serving as Chowkidar. Appellant stopped coming to the office with effect from July 10, 2000 and disappeared under suspicious circumstances. (iii) Deceased was strangulated with the help of rope and thereafter his dead body was thrown in 'Kund'. (iv) Appellant stayed in the Hotel at Ahmedabad giving fictitious name and left the Hotel on July 14, 2000 at 12 noon. (v) Explanation of the appellant that he had gone to Bombay was found false. 5. Before analysing the rival submissions we deem it appropriate to look at the background scenario existed at the time when he deceased Kalu disappeared. The incident had its roots in the written report (Ex.P-29) submitted on July 8, 2000 by one Hanuman Prasad Maheshwari at Police Station Kotwali Bundi at 10.35 AM. The reported reads as under : HINDI MATTER 358247 A 6. Case under Section 365 Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown person and investigation commenced. In the statement (Ex.P30) under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code which was recorded on July 10, 2000 Kalu (Chowkidar in Agriculture department) stated thus : HINDI MATTER B 7. The appellant, who was Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Agriculture Department got himself absented from the office since July 10, 2000. On July 12, 2000, the SHO moved an application in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi for recording the statement of Kalu under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate fixed July 17, 2000 for this purpose. In the intervening night of July 14 and 15, 2000 Kalu disappeared, while he was on duty in the Agriculture office. As already noticed a case under Section 456/364 Indian Penal Code, was registered and on July 19, 2000 dead body of Kalu was found floating in a 'Kund'. Learned Magistrate fixed July 17, 2000 for this purpose. In the intervening night of July 14 and 15, 2000 Kalu disappeared, while he was on duty in the Agriculture office. As already noticed a case under Section 456/364 Indian Penal Code, was registered and on July 19, 2000 dead body of Kalu was found floating in a 'Kund'. Autopsy on the dead body was performed and in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P-6) following opinion was given by the Medical Board:- "We the members of Medical Board are of the opinion that the mode of death is asphyxia as the result of ante mortem throttling, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." 8. We now proceed to consider each circumstances and the contentions raised before us.MOTIVE : 9. Anil Kumar Pandey (Pw.13) in his deposition stated that on July 8, 2000 he was posted as Sub Inspector in the Police Station Kotwali Bundi and was investigating case No.290/2000 registered under Section 365 Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation it was revealed that Kalu Harijan, Chowkidar, was the eye witness of the occurrence. Anil Kumar Pandey in his hand writing recorded the statement of Kalu (Ex.P-28) under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. Carbon copy of the said statement was exhibited as Ex.P-30. The witness further deposed that whatever Kalu stated before him he got it recorded. In order to rule out the possibility of tampering, he decided to get the statement of Kalu recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code and moved an application (Ex.P-31) in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi on July 12, 2000. Learned ACJM directed to produce Kalu on July 17, 2000. Shri Ajay Kumar (PW.27) deposed that on July 12, 2000 he was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi and on the application submitted by the Police Station Kotwali for recording the statement of witness Kalu under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code , he directed to produce case diary and the witness on July 17, 2000. Thereafter Anil Pandey, S.I. on July 17, 2000 expressed that the witness was abducted and July 20,000 was fixed but on July 20, 2000 the application was dismissed in default. Thereafter Anil Pandey, S.I. on July 17, 2000 expressed that the witness was abducted and July 20,000 was fixed but on July 20, 2000 the application was dismissed in default. Suresh Kumar (Pw.21) got recovered appointment letters of the deceased Kalu (Ex.P-38) and appellant (Ex.P39) as well as the attendance register (Ex.P-40) for the month of July, 2000 from the office of Agriculture Extension Bundi. Conjoint reading of all these documents gives rise to following fact situation: (i) On July 7, 2000 child Sonu was abducted. A written report was lodged by the father of Sonu at Police Station Kotwali Bundi on July 8, 2000. Case No.290/2000 under section 365 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. (ii) In the course of investigation it was revealed that Kalu Chowkidar of the Agriculture Department was the main eyewitness of the occurrence. (iii) Anil Kumar Panday, Sub Inspector on July 10, 2000 recorded the statement of Kalu under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code wherein Kalu stated that the appellant took a child to the. Agriculture Extension office in an unconscious state and kept him in a Computer Room. Kalu knew the appellant since he too was serving in the Agriculture Extension office as Clerk-cum-Cashier. (iv) The day Kalu gave statement to police i.e. July 10, 2000, appellant got himself absented from the office and without submitting any leave application he disappeared. (v) On July 12, 2000 Police Station Kotwali moved application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of Kalu under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned ACJM directed to produce Kalu alongwith case diary on July 17, 2000 (vi) In the intervening night of July 14, and 15, 2000 Kalu while on duty as Chowkidar, disappeared from the office of Agriculture Extension. (vii) Dead body of Kalu was found floating in a 'Kund' on July 19, 2000. (viii) Cause of death of Kalu according to post-mortem report was ante mortem throttling sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that from the fact that deceased Kalu had to appear as a witness against the appellant, it can not be inferred that the appellant had motive to kill Kalu. Reliance is placed on Ashok Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (1996) 11 SCC 618 , State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh (1981) 2 SCC 300 , Subimal Sarkar Vs. Reliance is placed on Ashok Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (1996) 11 SCC 618 , State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh (1981) 2 SCC 300 , Subimal Sarkar Vs. Sachindra Nath Mandal (2003) 2 SCC 566 , Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 1999 SCC (Cri.) 33 and Vijendrer Vs. State of Delhi (1997) 6 SCC 171 . 11. Motive plays an important role in order to tilt the scale against the accused. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes greater importance. In Udaipal Vs. State ( AIR 1972 SC 54 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that if the evidence shows that the accused having a strong motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be complete as to hod the accused guilty. 12. In the fact situation of the case on hand as already noticed the deceased had seen appellant with the abducted boy and named the appellant as main culprit of the case. Statement of Kalu under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by Anil Kumar Penday, Sub Inspector on July 10, 2000. The deceased and appellant were serving in the same department. Strongly, the appellant did not keep himself present in the office after July 9, 2000 and disappeared without submitting any leave application. On July 12, 2000 Police Station Kotwali approached the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of Kalu under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate directed to produce Kalu on July 17, 2000 in he court but before Kalu could testify against the appellant, he was abducted in the intervening night of July 14 and 15, 2000 and his dead body was found floating in a 'Kund' on July 19, 2000. The evidence collected by the prosecution shows that the appellant having a strong motive had the opportunity of committing crime and the established circumstances exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit as Kalu only knew the appellant and named him and none other as abductor of child Sonu in his police statement. Thus the possibility can not be ruled out that in order to prevent Kalu from appearing before the Magistrate, his voice was completely silenced. 13. Thus the possibility can not be ruled out that in order to prevent Kalu from appearing before the Magistrate, his voice was completely silenced. 13. Motive preparation, opportunity and like most mental or composite facts, are usually provable not by direct testimony, but by dealing the specific incidents. Inferences as to motive are drawn from such facts and incidents. In State of Haryana Vs. Tek Singh (1999) 4 SCC 682 , the Apex Court observed that where the statements on record and background of the case showed the motive, it was difficult to hold that there was no motive on the part of the accused.CONDUCT: 14. But motive alone is not sufficient to convict accused. Along with motive, there should be some further corroborative evidence. Motive only helps in process of presumptive reasoning. In the instant case there is yet another circumstance, i.e. "the abnormal conduct of the appellant". A look at the Attendance Register (Ex. P-40) for the month of July, 2000 of the office of Agriculture Extension shows that the appellant did not appear in the office with effect from July 10, 2000 and disappeared. Incidentally statement of Kalu under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the Police on July 10, 2000. Illustration (i) appended to Section 8 Evidence Act reads as under : "(i) A is accused of crime. The facts that after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant." It is well settled that disappearance of the accused after the occurrence is a relevant circumstance which in the absence of any plausible explanation can be taken into consideration as conduct. A piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. A piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. In the instant case the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code stated that he had gone to Bombay but this explanation was found false in view of testimony of Madan Pal Singh and Sub Inspector (Pw.25) and Pritam Singh ASI (Pw.15) who categorically deposed that they along with the appellant had gone to Ahmedabad and got recovered the record of Hotels Amber and Rukmani where the appellant had stayed showing himself as Sunil Joshi and gave the address 'Langer Ke Balaji Gangauri Bazar Jaipur". According to these witnesses the appellant stayed in the Hotel Amber from July 11, 2000 till 12.30 of July 12, 2000. Relevant pages of Register were marked as Ex.P-43 and Seizure Memo of the pages Ex.P50 was drawn. In Hotel Rukmani also the appellant gave his name as Sunil and stayed there from July 12, 2000 till 12 noon of July 14, 2000. Relevant pages of Register got seized and Seizure Memo Ex.P-52 was drawn. Statements of Madan Pal Singh and Pritam Singh could not be shattered in the cross examination and we see no good reason to disbelieve them. These witnesses had no enmity with the appellant. If Hotel Managers were not examined it is hardly of any consequence. FALSE EXPLANATION: 15. False explanation of the accused can be taken into consideration as an additional link to the chain of events presented by the prosecution. In a case where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the accused did not offer any explanation consistent with his innocence the absence of such explanation itself is an additional link which completes the chain. An evasive answer by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is a circumstance which can go against him (vide JV Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 Cr.L.J. 803 (Bombay) . In the case on hand the false answer given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code that he had gone to Bombay goes against him and his false explanation itself is an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.OTHER INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES : 16. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he knew driving. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he knew driving. This fact has been established that the appellant had left Hotel Rukmani on July 14, 2000 at 12 noon and anybody could reach from Ahmedabad to Bundi in ten hours by road. Since the appellant failed to discharge burden that laid heavily on him under Section 106 Evidence Act as to where had he gone on July 14, 2000 after 12 noon, the possibility of coming from Ahmedabad to Bundi to shut the mouth of Kalu Chowkidar, who was alone in the office, can not be ruled out. 17. We do not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel that Kalu, who was under intoxication, himself fell down in 'Kund' and died. We were taken through the cross-examination of Dr. O.P. Verma (PW.8) and attempt was made to justify that Kalu fell down from the height in the water and died but on a close scrutiny of entire evidence of Dr. Verma, we find that Kalu died because of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 18. Thus we are of the view that circumstances from which an inference is sought to be drawn have been cogently and firmly established and they have definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and they, after taken cumulatively, have formed a chain so complete that there is no escape for the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellant and none else. 19. For these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******