Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 228 (BOM)

Gajanan Baburao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

2005-02-22

D.D.SINHA, P.B.GAIKWAD

body2005
Judgment D. D. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 22nd november, 2000, passed by Additional sessions Judge, Akoia, in Sessions Trial no. 10 of 1997, whereby the Appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal code, and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year. The circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellant, in nutshell, are as follows :- ( 3 ) ON 24th August, 1996, manikrao (P. W. 1), Police Patil of village dalambi, lodged a report with Police Station, murtizapur, that on 23rd August, 1996 at about 7. 30 p. m. , when he was present at his house, his son Rajendra came from murtizapur and informed him that the dead body of deceased Deepak was lying by the side of National Highway in Anbhora Shivar. On receiving the said information, P. W. 1 went to Ganpat (P. W. 8), the father of the deceased, and informed him this fact. On the very day, ganpat and widow of the deceased, namely kamlabai (P. W. 9) went to the spot of incident and saw the dead body of deceased Deepak lying there. Some policemen were also present on the spot, who asked them to return to their home. In the morning of 24th August, 1996, manikrao (P. W. 1) went to Murtizapur Police station and gave report (Exh. 10), on the basis of which Police registered Crime No. 240/1996 for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on the day of incident, Police Sub-Inspector-Ravindra P. Narkhede (P. W. 15) was attached to Police Station, Murtizapur, and in the evening on the day of incident, he received a phone call from one Ganeshpure of village anbhora, who had informed that the dead body of Deepak was lying by the side of malani Tyre Factory. The information was received by P. S. I. , Mule, who asked P. S. I. , narkhede to go to the spot. Some policemen went to the spot and saw the dead body of deceased Deepak lying there. The information was received by P. S. I. , Mule, who asked P. S. I. , narkhede to go to the spot. Some policemen went to the spot and saw the dead body of deceased Deepak lying there. They also saw incised wounds on the body of the deceased. Since it was a night time, five police constables were deputed to watch the dead body of deceased. Ganeshpure gave a written report about finding of dead body of deceased deepak and on the basis of that report, A. D. No. 36/1996 came to be registered. P. S. I. , mule thereafter handed over investigations to p. S. I. , Narkhede (P. W. 15), who conducted further investigations in the crime. On 24th august, 1996, P. S. I. , Narkhede went to the spot of incident, drew inquest Panchanama of the dead body, which is at Exh. 18. He noticed incised wounds on the dead body. P. S. I. , narkhede also conducted Spot Panchanama (Exh. 17 ). It is the case of the prosecution that in the meanwhile, Kamlabai (P. W. 9) and ganpat (P. W. 8) came to the spot and identified that the dead body was of Deepak. Dr. Swati (P. W. 16) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased on 24th August, 1996 between 1. 30 p. m. , and 2. 35 p. m. There were in all twelve incised cut wounds noticed on the dead body of deceased and there was a fracture of six ribs. The cause of death was due to multiple grievous stab wounds. The Post-mortem report is at Exh. 52. It is the case of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer seized clothes from the dead body of deceased having blood stains vide Exh. 31. During the course of investigations, the Investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses, attached the clothes of the accused, effected seizure of bicycle and there was a discovery of weapon by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. After completing the formal investigations, charge-sheet was filed against accused and charge under Section 302, indian Penal Code, came to be framed against accused, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) MR. After completing the formal investigations, charge-sheet was filed against accused and charge under Section 302, indian Penal Code, came to be framed against accused, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution for the purpose of proving the guilt of the accused for the offence charged are inadequate to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, and are incapable of proving the guilt of the accused and the chain of evidence is also inadequate to hold that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. ( 6 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that in the instant case though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses, the evidence of manikrao (P. W. I), who is examined by the prosecution to prove the contents of oral report (Exh. 10) lodged by him as well as Seizure memo (Exh. 11) in respect of blood sample bottle of deceased and sealed packet containing a piece of cloth having blood stain. It is submitted that this witness lodged oral report (Exh. 10) only on the basis of the information received by him about the dead body of deceased, which was lying in the anbhora Shivar and on the basis of the said information, this witness has informed the father of the deceased, namely Ganpat, in respect of the same. The evidence of this witness, therefore, does not implicate the appellant in the crime in question. ( 7 ) SO far as evidence of Sharad (P. W. 2) is concerned, he was the Proprietor of Ambika Cycle stores at Murtizapur, and it was alleged by the prosecution that the deceased Deepak had hired a bicycle (Article 17) from his shop on 23rd August, 1996. The prosecution has examined this witness to prove these facts. It is contended that as per the evidence of Umesh (P. W. 5), Dadarao (P. W. 6), and Subhash (P. W. 10), on 23rd august, 1996 at about 5. 00 to 5. 30 p. m. , these witnesses were present at the bus stop of the village. The prosecution has examined this witness to prove these facts. It is contended that as per the evidence of Umesh (P. W. 5), Dadarao (P. W. 6), and Subhash (P. W. 10), on 23rd august, 1996 at about 5. 00 to 5. 30 p. m. , these witnesses were present at the bus stop of the village. The appellant met them on the road near the bus stop and asked Umesh (P. W. 5) to take his bicycle to the house of his sister, as the appellant was urgently required to go to Akola. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel, contended that it is the case of the prosecution that Umesh (P. W. 5) handed over the said bicycle (Art. 17) to the sister of appellant, from whom the said bicycle is seized by the police in the investigation. It is submitted that there are discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses in respect of time when the appellant met them near the bus stop of the village. As per the evidence of Umesh (P. W. 5) and dadarao (P. W. 6) on 23rd August, 1996, at about 5. 30 p. m. , to 6. 00 p. m. accused met them near S. T. Stand of their village Dalambi. However, as per the evidence of Subhash (P. W. 10), the accused met them at about 5. 00 to 5. 30 p. m. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel, therefore, contended that the discrepancy in regard to the time in their testimonies creates doubt about the authenticity of their ocular testimonies and their evidence cannot be accepted in this regard. ( 8 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel, further contended that though the prosecution has examined Sharad (P. W. 2), who claimed to have identified the bicycle (Art. 17) as belonging to his shop, however, the testimony of this witness failed to establish that it was the same bicycle, which was hired by the deceased Deepak from him on 23rd August, 1996, since the register showing entry in this regard was not produced by the prosecution in the court and in absence thereof, the evidence of this witness is inadequate to establish that the bicycle (Art. 17) is the one, which was hired by the deceased on 23rd august, 1996 from his shop. ( 9 ) MR. ( 9 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel, contended that evidence of Ganpat (P. W. 8) and Kamlabai (P. W. 9) shows that these two witnesses along with deceased Deepak were at Murtizapur and accused met them in the market at Murtizapur. These two witnesses returned to village Dalambi at 6. 00 p. m. , and accused left with the deceased on bicycle from murtizapur. It is submitted that the evidence of these two witnesses is in variance with the testimonies of P. Ws. 5, 6 and 10. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel, contended that if as per the testimonies of P. Ws. 8 and 9, accused met them sometime before 6. 00 o'clock on 23rd august, 1996 in the market at Murtizapur, then the version of P. Ws. 5, 6 and 10 that accused met them at 5. 30 to 6. 00 near bus stop at village Dalambi, which is quite far away from Murtizapur is improbable and, therefore, create doubt about the authenticity of testimonies of these prosecution witnesses. ( 10 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel, further contended that so far as evidence of raghoji (P. W. 11) is concerned, it reveals that on 23rd August, 1996, h'e saw deceased and accused on bicycle at about 5. 00 to 5. 30 p. m. , near village Anbhora. It is contended that the testimony of this witness contradicts the theory of 'accused last seen with the deceased' put forth by Ganpat (P. W. 8) and Kamlabai (P. W. 9) sometime just prior to 6. 00 p. m. , on 23rd August, 1996 at Murtizapur, since as per the testimony of P. W. 11, he saw accused and deceased near village Anbhora at about 5. 00 to 5. 30 p. m. . This inconsistency creates doubt about the authenticity of the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses. ( 11 ) IT is submitted that in the instant case, the appellant was arrested after about 19 to 20 hours from the time of alleged incident and at the time of arrest, the clothes, which were worn by the accused and seized by Police, were blood stained. It is submitted that it is highly improbable that the appellant, after commission of crime, would keep the blood-stained clothes on his person till the time he was arrested and, therefore, the entire prosecution case in this regard is improbable and cannot be accepted. It is submitted that it is highly improbable that the appellant, after commission of crime, would keep the blood-stained clothes on his person till the time he was arrested and, therefore, the entire prosecution case in this regard is improbable and cannot be accepted. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (a) Khalil Khan Vs. State of M. P. (2004 SCC (Cri.) 1052) and (b) narayanaswamy Ravishankar Vs. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Revenue intelligence (2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 382 (S. C.) ). It is further contended that P. Ws. 5, 6 and 10 in their respective testimonies have not stated that when the appellant met them near bus stop at village Dalambi, the clothes of the accused were blood stained, which falsifies the evidence of the prosecution in regard to the blood stained clothes of the accused. It is further submitted that the findings in respect of the blood group of the deceased remained inclusive and in absence thereof, it is not possible that the blood detected on the dagger (Art. 15) and clothes of the accused was that of the deceased. ( 12 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Memorandum as well as Discovery Panchanama of dagger are not signed by the accused and in absence thereof, the said circumstance cannot be admitted in the evidence. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1995 Cri. L. J. 3992 ). ( 13 ) IT is contended that evidence of samadhan (P. W. 12) shows that on the date of incident at about 11. 30 to 12. 00 noon, he saw the appellant, deceased Deepak, Namdeo gaikwad as well as Subhash Jadhav sitting at the house of Sakhubai at Murtizapur. However, the prosecution has not examined either Namdeo or Subhash Jadhav to prove this fact and in absence thereof it is highly unsafe to rely on the solitary testimony of samadhan in this regard. ( 14 ) MR. Ghare, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that in the instant case, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are inadequate to prove motive behind the crime. ( 14 ) MR. Ghare, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that in the instant case, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are inadequate to prove motive behind the crime. It is submitted that though it is a case of the prosecution that the accused was on enimical terms with the deceased in view of the incident, which had taken place some years ago, wherein deceased Deepak had killed the father of the appellant and though the deceased was prosecuted in the said crime, but was acquitted and, therefore, the appellant wanted to take revenge of death of his father. However, in order to prove this circumstance for the purpose of establishing the motive against appellant for the crime, prosecution is relying on the evidence of Ganpat (P. W. 8) and kamlabai (P. W. 9), but their testimonies are inadequate to prove the alleged motive. It is submitted that since motive has not been proved by the prosecution, though alleged, in the present case, it is fatal to the prosecution, since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1972 Cri. LJ. 473. ( 15 ) MR. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that taking into consideration the totality of the prosecution evidence, the circumstances, which are brought on record by the prosecution, they do not conclusively prove the guilt of the accused, nor on the basis of the same, inference can be drawn that the accused is the author of the crime and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order is unsustainable in law and needs to be set aside. ( 16 ) MRS. Dangre, learned Additional public Prosecutor, supported the Judgment and Order passed by Trial Court and submitted that the circumstances, which are brought on record by the prosecution, are clinching, which complete the chain of evidence and conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that in the instant case the incident took place sometime in the evening of 23rd August, 1996 and prior to the incident in question, there is evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the deceased was with the accused on 23rd August, 1996. It is submitted that in the instant case the incident took place sometime in the evening of 23rd August, 1996 and prior to the incident in question, there is evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the deceased was with the accused on 23rd August, 1996. For that purpose, the prosecution has examined ganpat (P. W. 8), father of the deceased, kamlabai (P. W. 9), widow of the deceased. Similarly, Raghoji (P. W. 11) and Samadhan (P. W. 12) are examined by the prosecution on the point of 'deceased last seen with the accused' prior to the incident in question. It is contended that evidence of Umesh (P. W. 5), dadarao (P. W. 6) and Suresh (P. W. 10) is on the point of that accused handed over bicycle (Art. 17) to Umesh (P. W. 5) on 23rd August, 1996 near bus stop of the village with the instruction that Umesh (P. W. 5) should hand over the same to the sister of the accused. The bicycle was seized from the house of the sister of the accused and is identified by Sharad (P. W. 2) that Article 17 was the same bicycle, which was hired by deceased on the date of incident and it belonged to him. It is submitted that apart from that, the discovery of dagger having blood 'b' Group is a circumstance which connects the accused with the crime. Similarly, the clothes of the accused and the deceased were stained with blood of 'b' group, which also is an incriminating circumstance. It is submitted that all these circumstances cumulatively prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and are corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Swati (P. W. 16 ). It is submitted that the discovery of dagger is admissible in law even though the signature of the accused was not obtained on Memorandum as well as discovery Panchanama. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram and others (1999 Cri. L. J. 2588 ). ( 17 ) WE have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the prosecution evidence on record. ( 18 ) IN the instant case, the prosecution has examined number of witnesses to prove the offence charged against the appellant. Teja Ram and others (1999 Cri. L. J. 2588 ). ( 17 ) WE have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the prosecution evidence on record. ( 18 ) IN the instant case, the prosecution has examined number of witnesses to prove the offence charged against the appellant. However, there are different sets of witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove different circumstances to complete the chain of evidence in order to conclusively prove the charge framed against appellant. ( 19 ) THE case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that deceased Deepak hired a bicycle from the shop of Sharad (P. W. 2) on the date of incident, i. e. 23rd August, 1996. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has examined Sharad (P. W. 2), who owned Ambika Cycle Stores, from where the deceased hired the bicycle. The testimony of this witness reveals that he was knowing the deceased Deepak, since the deceased was a regular customer, who used to hire bicycle from him. It further reveals that the deceased deepak had hired a bicycle from his shop in the evening of 23rd August, 1996 at about 5. 00 p. m. , and did not return the same thereafter. This witness has stated in his deposition that he made entry in his register (Exh. 13) in this regard. It is also deposed by this witness that for the purpose of identification of bicycles, the witness used to scribe the name of his Stores on the handles and pedals of bicycles and also used to put serial numbers. The bicycle (Art. 17), which was hired by deceased Deepak, was bearing serial No. 15. This witness also identified the bicycle (Art. 17), which was seized from the house of the sister of the accused, being the same bicycle, which was hired by deceased deepak from his shop and there was No. 50 written on the bicycle. The cross-examination of this witness does not affect the ocular testimony of this wjtness and, therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it is conclusively proved that deceased Deepak hired the bicycle (Art. 17) from the shop of this witness. The cross-examination of this witness does not affect the ocular testimony of this wjtness and, therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it is conclusively proved that deceased Deepak hired the bicycle (Art. 17) from the shop of this witness. ( 20 ) THE evidence of Ganpat (P. W. 8), father of the deceased and Kamlabai, the widow of the deceased, is adduced by the prosecution in order to prove the fact that on the date of incident, i. e. , on 23rd August, 1996, while these two witnesses along with deceased Deepak were in the bazar at murtizapur, accused-appellant met them in the bazar and told these witnesses that he would go with Deepak to the village on bicycle. These two witnesses thereafter returned to the village in bullock cart and deceased Deepak went with the appellant. The evidence of these two witnesses, in our considered view, has established that prior to the incident in question, the deceased was last seen with the accused, since the dead body of the deceased deepakwas noticed by the son of Manikrao (P. W. 1) at about 7. 00 p. m. , on 23rd August, 1996 near the field of Gajanan Ganeshpure of village Anbhora, which is adjacent to the highway. The circumstance of 'deceased last seen with the accused' on the day of incident proved by P. Ws. 8 and 9 assumes importance, because the dead body of the deceased Deepak was found within a short time from the time these witnesses last time saw deceased Deepak with the accused. ( 21 ) ANOTHER evidence on this point adduced by the prosecution is that of Raghoji (P. W. 11 ). In his testimony, he stated that on 23rd August, 1996 at about 5. 00-5. 30 p. m. , near village Anbhora, he saw the appellant and deceased Deepak, who were coming on bicycle. The appellant was riding the cycle and deceased Deepak was sitting on the front rod of the cycle. They met this witness near the bridge before reaching the village anbhora. The testimony of this witness, therefore, corroborates the evidence of Ganpat (P. W. 8) and Kamlabai (P. W. 9) and further demonstrates that just prior to the incident, in question, deceased was last seen with the appellant. They met this witness near the bridge before reaching the village anbhora. The testimony of this witness, therefore, corroborates the evidence of Ganpat (P. W. 8) and Kamlabai (P. W. 9) and further demonstrates that just prior to the incident, in question, deceased was last seen with the appellant. ( 22 ) ANOTHER set of prosecution witnesses consists of Umesh (P. W. 5), Dadarao (P. W. 6) and Subhash (P. W. 10 ). Testimonies of these witnesses show that on 23rd August, 1996 in the evening at about 5. 30 to 6. 00 p. m, they were present at the bus stop of village dalambi. At that time, appellant-accused met them there and handed over one bicycle to umesh (P. W. 5) in the presence of P. Ws. 6 and 10 and also told him to hand over the same to his sister. All these witnesses have identified the said bicycle, which is Art. 17, which had no. 50 written on it. The cross-examination of these witnesses conducted by the defence does not affect the ocular testimonies of these witnesses and same is acceptable. Bicycle (Art. 17), admittedly, was seized from the house of the sister of appellant and Seizure panchanama in this regard is Exh. 33 and the endorsement on this Exh. 33 shows that the appellant has admitted this document. ( 23 ) IN the instant case, Sanjay (P. W. 7) is examined by the prosecution to prove the contents of Memorandum (Exh. 22) as well as Discovery Panchanama (Exh. 23) in respect of dagger (Art. 15 ). It is, no doubt, true that the Memorandum as well as Seizure panchanama were not signed by the accused. However, that by itself, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram and others (cited supra) does not affect the discovery of weapon made by the accused. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jackran Singh (cited supra) in this regard is based on the facts and circumstances of the said case. In the said case, the appellant was arrested during the night intervening 15-16th June, 1984, and not on 23rd June, 1984, as alleged by the prosecution. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jackran Singh (cited supra) in this regard is based on the facts and circumstances of the said case. In the said case, the appellant was arrested during the night intervening 15-16th June, 1984, and not on 23rd June, 1984, as alleged by the prosecution. The further prosecution case was that the appellant was arrested on 23rd June, 1984 and led to the discovery of revolver and the cartridges pursuant to the disclosure statement and, therefore, in view of these facts, the apex Court has observed that the circumstances render the entire aspect of discovery suspicious and observed thus :- "we are unable to place any reliance upon the alleged disclosure statement and the recovery of the revolver and consequently the opinion of the Ballistic Expert connecting the empties with Ex. M/o/4 becomes irrelevant. The appellant has denied ownership of the crime revolver and the prosecution has led no evidence to show that the crime weapon belonged to the appellant. There is no other circumstance pressed into aid by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime. The prosecution has thus not been able to establish the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. "it is, therefore, evident that the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment - vis-a-vis - Section 27 of the evidence Act is primarily because of the facts and circumstances involved in the said case and, therefore, it is of little help to the appellant in the present case. Moreover, in the present case, the prosecution has also examined Panch Witness Sanjay (P. W. 7) to prove the contents of Memorandum as well as Discovery Panchanama. On the other hand, the Apex Court in the case of State of rajasthan (cited supra) in Paragraph 30 observed thus :- "30. The resultant position is that the investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the evidence Act. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence we cannot find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signatures of the accused in Exs. But, if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence we cannot find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signatures of the accused in Exs. P-3 and P-4 seizure memo would vitiate the evidence regarding recovery of the axes. "in view of the above referred observations of the Apex Court, the evidence of discovery of weapon is admissible in law and the same can also be relied on. ( 24 ) THE prosecution has examined dr. Swati (P. W. 16) to prove the contents of post-Mortm Report. The testimony of this witness shows that she conducted postmortem examination on the deceased on 24th august, 1996 between 1. 35 p. m. , and 2. 35 p. m. , and during the course of post-mortem examination, she noticed as many as thirteen injuries on the person of the deceased consisting of incised and stab wounds as well as fracture of ribs. She has also opined that injury Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 could be caused by a sharp cutting object like dagger (Art. 15 ). She has also given the age of injuries. According to her, the age of injuries was 18 hours prior to the examination. The evidence of this witness, in our considered view, corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by the above referred witnesses. On the basis of the medical evidence of Dr. Swati, particularly in respect of age of the injuries, it is possible to infer that time of death of the deceased approximately must have been between 5. 00 and 6. 00 p. m. on 23rd August, 1996. The evidence on record also shows that the dead body of the deceased was found at about 7. 00 p. m. , on 23rd August, 1996 near village anbhora. ( 25 ) SO far as the Judgment of the apex Court in Ramgopal's case (cited supra), reiied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the relevant portion in Paragraph 16 of the said Judgment reads thus :- "in any case, if motive as a circumstance is put forward in a criminal case, it must, like any other incriminating circumstance in any be fully established. It is not possible to hold having regard to the probabilities of the case that the motive alleged by the prosecution is fully established. "the above referred observation of the Apex court demonstrates that if the prosecution alleges motive for the commission of the crime, then it is for the prosecution to prove this circumstance conclusively and it is not possible to hold, having regard to the probabilities of the case, that the motive alleged by the prosecution is fully established. However, the observations of the Apex Court in the above referred Judgment do not mean that the case of the prosecution, in absence of motive, if there are other clinching circumstances proved by the prosecution, which conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, is vitiated. In the instant case, though it is suggested by the prosecution that there was an enmity between the appellant and the deceased on account of earlier incident, wherein the deceased Deepak was alleged to have killed the father of the appellant, however, we feel, looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard, much importance cannot be given to this circumstance of motive. ( 26 ) IN the instant case, it is, no doubt, true that some reference is made in the testimonies of P. Ws. 8 and 9 in order to show animosity between the appellant and the deceased in view of the earlier incident. However, much reliance has not been placed on this aspect by the Trial Court. Similarly, in case of Khalil Khan (supra), the Apex court observed that it is extremely difficult to believe that a person involved in such a serious crime would still be wearing blood stained clothes even four days after the murder and, therefore, the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused was considered to be doubtful. However, in the instant case, the facts and circumstances are entirely different. The accused was arrested before 24 hours from the time of incident and, therefore, it will not be possible to hold, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that finding of blood-stains on the clothes of the accused at the time of arrest is an improbable situation. The accused was arrested before 24 hours from the time of incident and, therefore, it will not be possible to hold, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that finding of blood-stains on the clothes of the accused at the time of arrest is an improbable situation. ( 27 ) IN the instant case, much capital is made by the Counsel for the Appellant about the discrepancy in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the time when the appellant was last seen with the deceased. In this case, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the witnesses, such as ganpat (P. W. 8), Kamlabai (P. W. 9) as well as umesh (P. W. 5), Dadarao (P. W. 6) and subhash (P. W. 10), are rustic villagers and their concept of time is always approximate, and not exact and specific. While considering the evidence of these witnesses in this regard, court is required to keep these factors in mind and appreciation of their testimonies is required to be done accordingly. In the instant case, though there is some inconsistency in regard to the time when these witnesses either met or had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant, however, the inconsistency is of a minor nature and does not render the testimonies of these witnesses either suspicions or untrustworthy and, therefore, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel in this regard suffers from lack of merit and is rejected. ( 28 ) SINCE the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and as per the evidence of the prosecution, deceased was last seen with the appellant just prior to finding of dead body of the deceased, it was necessary for the appellant to give a reasonable explanation as to at what point of time the deceased left the company of the appellant, as these facts were only within the knowledge of the Appellant, and nobody else could throw any light in this regard. However, in the instant case, the appellant has not given any explanation in this regard, which again is one of the circumstances which is not consistent with the innocence of the appellant. However, in the instant case, the appellant has not given any explanation in this regard, which again is one of the circumstances which is not consistent with the innocence of the appellant. ( 29 ) THE evidence on the point of 'deceased last seen with the appellant' adduced by the prosecution in the present case assumes more importance, because the deceased was last seen with the appellant just prior to finding of dead body of the deceased and, therefore, in the instant case, it is not only the strong circumstance against the appellant, but the evidence in this regard in clinching and coupled with the other circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, the requisite chain of evidence required to be established by the prosecution, in our considered view, is complete. Taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution, we are of the view that the circumstances, which are brought on record and established by the prosecution conclusively prove that the appellant is the author of the crime and exclude all other possibilities consistent with the innocence of the appellant. Therefore, Appeal must fail. Hence Criminal Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.