Per J.P SINGH, JUDGE. 1. Amar Singh, appellant, seeks setting aside of judgment and order dated 09.12.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi, whereby he has been convicted under section 302 RPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Learned Sessions Judge has made reference under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of sentence. 3. Facts leading to the conviction and sentence of the appellant, may be summarized thus: 4. One Amar Singh, a resident of Delhi, arrived at Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, with a woman. He booked their stay in Room No.414. An amount of Rs.100/- was deposited by way of security. Rs.21/- were paid as donation to the Sabha. The duo, posing as husband and wife, lodged their luggage in the Cloakroom and left for Bhawan. On 14.6.1992, the couple returned and stayed in Room No.104. On 17.6.1992, Room No.104 was found locked. Foul smell had started emanating from there. On peeping the rear window of the room, dead body of a woman was discovered in the room. An FIR being FIR No.94/92, was lodged and a case under section 302 RPC registered at Police Station, Katra. Besides the belongings of the two souls, a writing was found on the reverse side of the donation Receipt, which stood issued by Shri Dhar Sabha. This writing was in Hindi. It revealed the names of the deceased as Renu Bala W/o Vijay Kumar, R/o Delhi and the murderer was identified as Amar Singh S/o Phool singh R/o Delhi. Message was flashed by the Investigating Agency on the address found on the basis of this writing. Delhi Police arrested Amar Singh, appellant, on the basis of this writing. 5. During the investigation of the case, specimen signatures and writing of Amar Singh, appellant, were obtained by the Investigating Police Officer and later sent for its comparison. The hand-writing expert found the two writings, i.e the one on the reverse of the receipt issued by Shri Dhar Sabha and the specimen hand-writings, to have been written by one and the same person. The autopsy was conducted and the deceased was found to have died due to strangulation and the time of death was mentioned within three days of the post-mortem, which was conducted on 17.6.1992. 6. The autopsy was conducted and the deceased was found to have died due to strangulation and the time of death was mentioned within three days of the post-mortem, which was conducted on 17.6.1992. 6. Final Report under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed against the accused in the Court of Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Reasi, who committed the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi. 7. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused vide his order dated 7.11.1997. The appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution produced Surinder Kumar, Vaishnoo Dutt, Lakshmi Chand, Prem Chand, Sham Lal, Shashi Bhushan, Jai Krishan, the functionaries/employees of Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, as its witnesses, besides Raj Kumar, Photographer, Dr. K.C Dogra, Romail Singh Chowdhary, Baldev Singh, Investigating Police Officer and Dr. R.L Dhar, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu, as its witnesses. The accused was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances, appearing in evidence, were put to the accused for his explanation. Accused denied the circumstances so put, in his statement. He denied the execution of confessional note as also the specimen signatures and writings obtained by the Investigating Agency during investigation of the case. He claimed to be innocent, but did not lead any evidence in defence. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi, (hereafter referred as "trial court") appreciated evidence led by the prosecution, to find out as to whether or not the five principles/conditions, noticed in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 1984 SC 1622, were established from the evidence collected by the prosecution and adduced during the trial of the case. The five points, noticed by learned trial court, are viz, (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The five points, noticed by learned trial court, are viz, (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must or should not `may be established; (2 The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 10. Learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence in the light of aforementioned five principles/conditions and found these principles/conditions to have been established on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution in this case. He accordingly convicted the appellant under section 302 RPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 11. Statements of the prosecution witnesses have been reproduced by the trial court in its judgment. We will refer to it whenever reference to it is found necessary for dealing with the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 12. Shri O.P Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, questioned the findings of conviction and sentence, of the trial court on the grounds, which are dealt with seriatim as under: 13. Shri Sharma urged that the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence so as to establish the identity of the appellant and prove that it was the appellant accused, who had come to Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, on 12th June, 1992, booked a room and thereafter left leaving the woman, who had accompanied him, alone in the room from where her dead body had been recovered. Shri Sharma read before us the statements of the prosecution witnesses to demonstrate his point of view. 14. In order to appreciate the submission of Shri Sharma, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of PW Shashi Bhushan in the first instance. PW Shashi Bhushan states that : "Amar Singh had come from Delhi. He had asked for one room. 14. In order to appreciate the submission of Shri Sharma, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of PW Shashi Bhushan in the first instance. PW Shashi Bhushan states that : "Amar Singh had come from Delhi. He had asked for one room. A woman accompanied him who was introduced as his wife. He gave him Room no.414. On the second day, i.e 13.6.1992, both of them went to Darbar Vaishno Devi. They had given donation of Rs.21/-. He had given a receipt to them for the same. When they came back from Darbar Vaishno Mata, his colleague Ashok Kumar allotted another room of Sabha to them. It was on 17th June, 1992 that foul smell was noticed from Room no.104. On peeping into the room, a dead body was found there. This incident was reported to Secretary of the Sabha, who, in turn informed the Police Station. Door was opened and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. He identifies and certifies as correct the entry made at serial No.999 at page no.129. this entry is marked as EXP SB-1. The receipt issued by him was shown to the witness, who accepted it to be correct. This receipt is marked as EXP SK-5." While under cross-examination, this witness states that: "According to records, Room no.414 is shown to have been allotted in the name of Amar Singh. The entry dated 13.6.1992 shows the allotment of Room no.104 to Amar Singh. At serial no.999, the Cloakroom man has made entry of Room no.104 and date is also written as 12.6.1992. Entry of two persons is mentioned at serial no.999, but it does not disclose whether two were male or female. He had seen Amar Singh, accused-appellant, for the first time on that date. Before that date he had not seen Amar Singh. Thereafter, he saw him in police custody. He did not know Amar Singh personally. Police had not conducted any test identification parade. Police had asked as to whether Amar Singh was the same person who was in their custody, to which this witness replied in the affirmative. He did not see anything by side of the dead body. Entry made by me at serial no.999 of the register is correct. Accused had also signed on this entry. Room no.104 has not been written by him. He did not see anything by side of the dead body. Entry made by me at serial no.999 of the register is correct. Accused had also signed on this entry. Room no.104 has not been written by him. It was made by Ashok Kumar, because he was not on duty on that date. I cannot say whether Ashok Kumar had given room to Amar Singh or someone else." 15. We will now refer to the statement of Jai Krishan, who was the Incharge of Cloakroom of Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra. Prosecution Witness -- Jai Krishan states that: "He is the employee of Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). In 1984, it was his duty to book and keep the luggage etc., of those pilgrims in the Cloakroom, who would stay for the night in the Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). He would issue receipt for this purpose too. When the Yatris come back, they would collect the luggage from him, which would be given to them on production of the receipt. On 13.6.1992, on the asking of accused Amar Singh, he had kept some of his luggage in the Cloakroom of Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). This luggage was a bag. Vide receipt no. 5669, the accused had booked this bag in the Cloakroom. He certifies the entries made in the counter file of receipt no. 5669. Accused had booked this bag on 13.6.1992 and taken it back on 14.6.1992. Accused was allotted room no. 414 of the Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). The accused went for the Darshan of Holy Mother Shri Vaishno Devi Ji and thereafter he had come back. He had taken back his bag too. When he went for Darshan, he had vacated his room." 16. This witness was declared hostile by the Additional Public Prosecutor. In cross-examination, he states that when the accused had come to Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN), no one had accompanied him and no lady was with him but in the same breath, he admits that there was a lady waiting for him outside and accused, along wit that lady, went to Darbar of Holy Mother Shri Vaishno Devi Ji. He further admits in cross examination that after having darshan of Holy Mother, both these persons had come back to Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). He states that thereafter he had heard that room no. He further admits in cross examination that after having darshan of Holy Mother, both these persons had come back to Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). He states that thereafter he had heard that room no. 104 stood allotted in the name of accused by the Sabha. He has shown his ignorance about other things. He states that he was off duty mid-noon of 16.6.1992. Nothing could be elicited by the accused from the statement of this witness in cross-examination. 17. We fail to under stand as to why this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, when he had supported the prosecution in all material particulars, including his having identified the accused too in the court. The accused had not questioned this witness on the point of identification. This witness has been declared Hostile on the mere asking of the accused. Declaring a witness hostile, is not a routine function or mere ministerial act to be performed as a ritual. 18. Judicial discretion vested in a Court under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised on the lines indicated in Ravinder Kumar Deys case reported as AIR 1977 SC 170. Not lengthy but brief reasons must precede before a witness is declared hostile and permitted to be cross examined by the party who had called him or her. 19. We have quoted the statements of these witnesses almost in extenso so as to appreciate the submission of Shri Sharma, learned counsel for he accused-appellant. We, however, do not find any substance in the submission of Shri Sharma that the witnesses of the prosecution did no identify the accused-appellant to be the same person, who had come to Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, on 12.6.1992 and taken room for his stay in the Sabha along with a woman, who had accompanied him and who was introduced by him to be his wife. 20. The statement of PW Shashi Bhushan, proves the arrival of appellant-accused in Shri Dhar Sabha on 12.6.1992, his having taken a room in the Sabha from where he later shifted to another room of the Sabha. This witness further proves the stay of Amar Singh, accused-appellant, with the lady accompanying him in the Sabha, which lady was found dead in a locked room on 17.6.1992. 21. This witness further proves the stay of Amar Singh, accused-appellant, with the lady accompanying him in the Sabha, which lady was found dead in a locked room on 17.6.1992. 21. PW -- Jai Krishan too identifies accused Amar Singh who had come to Dharamshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, stayed there for the night and thereafter proceeded to Darbar of Shri Vaishno Devi Ji along with the deceased. The fact that both of them came back from Darbar of Shri Vaishno Devi Ji and stayed at Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, too, has been proved by this witness. This witness specifically proves having taken luggage from the accused and kept the same in Cloakroom of the Sabha. 22. Shri Sharma thereafter submitted that statements of PWs, Shashi Bhushan and Jai Krishan, cannot be taken into consideration because their evidence is valueless in the absence of any test identification parade, conducted by the Investigating Police Officer for identification of appellant-accused. We do not find any merit in the submission of Shri Sharma for the following reasons viz. (1) Both these witnesses specifically stated that they had seen the accused, when he had come to Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra along with the deceased. (2) that the accused had interacted with PW-Jai Krishan at the time of keeping his luggage, i.e the bag, in the Cloakroom and taking it back from him. He further specifically states that he had issued a receipt to the accused for donation that the accused had paid to the Sabha, which receipt and its record maintained as such in the Sabha, has been accepted by this witness to be correct; (3) both these witnesses have not been cross-examined by the accused on the points of their faculty of identification. The accused, had he wanted to dispute his identification, would have cross-examined these witnesses, to elicit the basis for their identifying the accused. Nothing of this sort has, however, happened in the present case. In the absence of any questions having been put by the accused to these witnesses in this regard, we are not inclined to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses, who have no enmity with the accused and had deposed to those things which the staff of any inn would in the ordinary circumstances so do, which have been found to be worthy of credence. 23. 23. Even otherwise, failure to hold test identification cannot warrant eschewable of prosecution evidence. This has been so held in State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, reported as 2005 SCC (Criminal) 1715. 24. Evidence of identification of the accused by a prosecution witness, needs to be considered, on its own facts and is not dependent on the holding or otherwise of the test identification parade. 25. YET another reason, which dissuades us from accepting the plea of Sh. Sharma, is that the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused, obtained during the currency of the investigation by the handwriting expert, in presence of the Magistrate, have tallied with the handwriting and signatures of the accused found on the reverse of donation receipt, which donation receipt was recovered from the place where dead body of the deceased was found in Room no. 104 of Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra. We have scanned the evidence of PW-Dr. R.L Dhar, handwriting expert. The expert opinion given by this witness has not been questioned by the accused in the cross-examination. Nothing has been brought to our notice by Sh.Sharma on the basis whereof, we may take a view contrary to the one taken by learned trial Court. Evidence of PW -- Dr. R.L Dhar, Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu, thus, corroborates the prosecution story, as projected by PW- Shashi Bhushan and PW- Jai Krishan. The identification of the accused cannot, thus, be faulted on any count whatsoever. 26. Sh. Sharma next argued that evidence of handwriting expert cannot be taken into consideration because the specimen of handwriting of the accused and his signatures, obtained during the currency of investigation, are hit by Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Sh.Sharma points out that Section 73 of the Evidence Act, does not permit taking of signatures and handwriting samples of the accused during investigation because such a course is unconstitutional. 27. In order to appreciate the submission of Sh.Sharma, a perusal of section 73 of the Evidence Act, Svt. 1977, would be apt. Section 73 of the Evidence Act reads thus: Section 73 "Comparison of signature, writing and seal with others admitted or proved. 27. In order to appreciate the submission of Sh.Sharma, a perusal of section 73 of the Evidence Act, Svt. 1977, would be apt. Section 73 of the Evidence Act reads thus: Section 73 "Comparison of signature, writing and seal with others admitted or proved. -- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to writ any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person." 28. We have perused this Section. We could not find any such impediment, which would render the act of obtaining the signatures and handwriting of the accused by the Investigating Police Officer inadmissible in evidence. First part of Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits proof of any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person. AND for this purpose, the admitted signatures may be compared with one, which is to be proved. 29. This is what has been done in the present case by the Investigating Police Officer. Signatures and writings, obtained by the Investigating Police Officer from the accused, have not been attacked by the defence, during the cross-examination of the Investigating Police Officer, Sh. Baldev Singh. No other material, too, has been brought to our notice by Sh. Sharma, on the basis whereof it may be said that the act of the accused in giving his signatures and handwriting for the purpose of comparison, was involuntary. We, thus, do not find any merit in the submission of Sh. Sharma. 30. Sh. Sharma next contended that in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as AIR 1980 SC 791, signatures and handwritings of the accused cannot be used against the accused. We, thus, do not find any merit in the submission of Sh. Sharma. 30. Sh. Sharma next contended that in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as AIR 1980 SC 791, signatures and handwritings of the accused cannot be used against the accused. In order to appreciate the submission of Sh.Sharma, it would be appropriate to refer to what has been held in this judgment in paras 3 and 4: "3. S.73 of the Evidence Act is as follows: "73. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications to finger impressions." "4. The second paragraph of sec.73 enables the Court to direct any person present in Court to give specimen writings `for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare such writings with writings alleged to have been written by such person. The clear implication of the words for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare is that there is some proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary for the Court to compare such writings. The direction is to be given for the purpose of `enabling the Court to compare and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency `to compare. If the case is still under investigation there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The direction is to be given for the purpose of `enabling the Court to compare and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency `to compare. If the case is still under investigation there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language of S.73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. Further, S.73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court. Would it be open to a person to seek assistance of the Civil court for a direction to some other person to give sample writing under S.73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that it would help him to decide whether to institute a Civil Suit in which the question would be whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not? Obviously not. If not, why should it make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the Court under S.73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings?" 31. We have considered this submission of Shri Sharma too. Dictum of Honble Supreme Court of India too, has been considered by us. 32. We are of the opinion that Shri Sharma is not correct in employing Section 73 to the facts of the present case. There is no evidence on records on the basis whereof, it may be held that accused was compelled by the Magistrate to give his statement for the purpose of investigation. The stand taken by the appellant-accused in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal is that he has not given any specimen signatures of writings before the Magistrate. That apart, what comes out from the recorded evidence and records is that the Investigating Officer had, on his own volition, produced the accused before the Magistrate, so as to obtain samples of the handwriting and signatures of the accused before the Magistrate, so that the authenticity of obtaining signatures and writing by the Investigating Officer, before the Magistrate, could be established at the time of the trial. Learned Magistrate has only facilitated the taking of samples of handwritings and signatures of the accused by the investigating Agency and in so doing, he has not exercised any magisterial powers, which may bring his case under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Shri Sharma has admitted before us that he is not possessed of any such order having been passed by the Magistrate, either compelling or directing the accused to give his specimen signatures for the purpose of comparison. The accused has voluntarily given his specimen signatures and writings, which course cannot be faulted as being violative of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Had the appellant any reservation in giving his specimen writing and signatures, he could well do it before a magistrate where a free atmosphere was provided to him. 33. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, then, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of events, which it had alleged in its case. In elucidation, he points out that the prosecution case that accused had come from Delhi along with the deceased and had stayed for the night at Ambala, has not been proved by it from the statement of any of the prosecution witnesses. We find force in this contention of Shri Sharma, only in so far as it pertains to the non-production of evidence by the prosecution so as to prove the start of journey by the accused and the deceased from Delhi and their night stay at Ambala. We, however, do not agree with rest of the submission of Shri Sharma that the chain of circumstances in the present case is not complete. This we say, because the relevant circumstances forming chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused, in the present case, are as follows: (1) Accused comes along with the deceased to Katra and takes a room for their stay in Shri Dhar Sabha; (2) Both accused and deceased stay at Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, for a day, where after, both of them, leave for having Darshan of Holy Mother at Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi Ji; (3) Accused and deceased come back from Darbar and stay in Room no. 104 at Shri Dhar Sabha; (4) Room No.104 is thereafter found locked wherefrom the dead body of the deceased is found when the staffs of Shri Dhar Sabha notices foul smell emitting from the room; (5) The donation receipt taken by the accused from Shri Dhar Sabha, is found from room no.104 along with the dead body of deceased Renu; (6) The donation receipt on its reverse contains the writing of accused, his address and the address of the deceased; (7) The accused is arrested on the address found on the back of donation receipt; and (8) Confessional statement of the accused recorded in his own handwriting on the reverse of donation receipt. 34. PW-Shashi Bhushan and PW-Jai Krishan, prove circumstances 1 to 3 detailed hereinabove. The staff of Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, i.e, PWs -- Surinder Kumar, Vaishno Dutt, Laxmi Chand, Prem Chand and Shashi Bushan, prove circumstances 4 and 5. PWs -- Dr. R.L Dhar and Baldev Singh, prove circumstance 6. Circumstance 7 stands proved from the evidence of Revail Singh Chowdhary, Sub-Inspector Police, who had received the message from Tihar Jail, Delhi and proceeded to Delhi to have the custody of the accused, who had been arrested on the basis of information supplied by Investigating Police Officer to Delhi Police for apprehending the accused on the address found on the reverse of the donation receipt. Circumstance 8 stands proved from the corroborative evidence of Dr. R.L Dhar, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu. 35. We further notice that staff of Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, barring PW -Shashi Bushan and PW -- Jai Krishan, had not been able to identify the accused. We further find from the evidence of PW -- Vaishno Dutt, Manager of Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, (INN) and the records of the Sabha, duly proved during the trial of the case, that only one hypothesis emerges from the prosecution evidence, i.e, it was the appellant and appellant alone, who had visited the Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, along with deceased Renu Bala on 12.6.1992, stayed there for the night, proceeded to have Darshan of Shri Vaishno Devi Ji at Darbar, wherefrom he along with the deceased had come back to this Sabha in room no. 104, wherefrom only dead body of the deceased was recovered. 36. We are further of the opinion that it was the accused, who was last seen with the deceased in room no. 104, wherefrom only dead body of the deceased was recovered. 36. We are further of the opinion that it was the accused, who was last seen with the deceased in room no. 104 at Dharmshala Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra (INN). PW Dr. K.C Dogra had proved that the deceased had died because of strangulation. 37. All these circumstances, point out unerringly and prove that the accused and accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime, who had come to Katra with a view to get rid of the deceased Renu Bala and succeeded in his nefarious design to do away with the life of Renu Bala. 38. Shri Sharma finally contended that motive for the crime has not been proved by the prosecution. In the absence of the motive, circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused cannot justify his conviction, pleaded Shri Sharma. We are not impressed with the argument of Shri Sharma. 39. Although motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, be it based on the testimony of direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. If the prosecution proves the existence of a motive, it would be excellent, particularly when a case depends on circumstantial evidence, for, existence of motive furnishes additional circumstance against an accused. However, it may not be forgotten that it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record as to what was there in the mind of the accused. It would be extremely difficult for the Investigating Agency to know the mind of the accused or collect evidence therefor except during interrogation, which may not be permissible to be put in evidence against the accused because our laws do no permit the result of interrogation to be brought on records for treating it as an evidence against accused. Absence of motive, in all cases, may, however, not be unpardonable lapse on the part of the prosecution. Absence of motive, thus, does not affect the veracity of the prosecution case. 40. Motive, in the present case, however, stands proved from the writing and confessional statement of the appellant recorded on the reverse of donation receipt. It would be appropriate to quote the writings fo the appellant appearing on the reverse of donation receipt. A perusal whereof would justify our conclusion that the motive in this case was not wanting, as urged by Shri Sharma. It would be appropriate to quote the writings fo the appellant appearing on the reverse of donation receipt. A perusal whereof would justify our conclusion that the motive in this case was not wanting, as urged by Shri Sharma. The writings on the reverse of a donation receipt read thus: "Iska Pehla Pati Bhee Hai Isne Muzhse Shadi To Nahi Ki Magar Dil Se Muzhe Apna Bna Liya Tha Iske Pehle Pati Ka Naam Vijay Kumar (Laalu Hai) Pata 9/4585-B Ajit Nagar, Gali No.4 Gandhi Nagar Dilli Hai. 100 Rupai Jo Humne Security Di Hai Wo Kripa Hamare Naam Se Daan Le Lee Jaye Aur Iski Rasid Kaat Di Jave Meri Patni (Pushp Lata) Ka Pata C-213 Khanpur Je.Je. Colony, Nai Dilli -- 62 Hai Dhanyawad Amar Renu Iska Naam Renu Bala Hai Main Amar Singh Yeh Tasdeeq Karta Hoon Ki Maine Is ka Katal Kar Diya Hai Kyon Ki Main Ise Bahut Pyar Karta Hoon Magar Isne Muzhe Barbad Kar Diya Bus Ab Main Bhee Apni Jeevan Leela Smapt Karne Ja Raha Hoon Hamare Bachchon Ko Tatha Hamare Badon Ko Hamara Antim Pranam Mera Pata:- Amar Singh S/o Shri Phool Singh : Iska Pata F Ist-127 R/o F-144 Madangeeri Camp, : Madangeeri Camp, J.J Colony, N.D -- 62 : Nai Dilli -- 62" 41. From the evidence brought on records by the prosecution, it is established that the accused hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased because he found himself in embarrassing position following the resolve of the deceased to live with the accused after she had been turned out by her husband and thereafter even by her father. The wife of the accused and other family members were also unhappy over the adulterous relationship between the accused and deceased. The appellant brought the deceased to Katra with criminal intention to eliminate her so that he is relieved of the pressure exerted by the deceased to live with him. It appears from the facts of the present case that the appellant had earlier resolved to commit suicide under an emotional and psychological impact of the act of eliminating the deceased. But it appears that the accused did not stick to this decision subsequently and slipped away from Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, to screen himself of the offence committed by him. 42. But it appears that the accused did not stick to this decision subsequently and slipped away from Shri Dhar Sabha, Katra, to screen himself of the offence committed by him. 42. Case cited by Shri Sharma and reported as Sanjay Dutt v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported as 1999 KLJ 291, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The accused-appellant has been properly identified in the present case and the chain of circumstances is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty of offence under section 302 RPC. 43. Another case cited Jaspal Singh @ Pali etc. v. State of Punjab, reported as 1996 (4) Crimes 74 (SC), is not attracted in the present case because the facts of the case in hand are materially different from those referred to in the above said judgment. 44. The prosecution has, in our opinion, succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant. We find that the discussion of prosecution evidence and material brought on records by the trial Court, is well founded and in accordance with law. We accept the conclusion reached at by learned trial Court. His findings on conviction and sentence are, thus, confirmed by accepting the Reference made by him in this behalf under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This appeal, thus, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Reference made by learned Sessions Judge, Reasi, is accepted. 45. Order passed by this Court suspending the sentence of the appellant, is withdrawn and the appellant is directed to be taken in custody for serving the remaining sentence. 46. This appeal is accordingly dismissed and Confirmation Reference No. 54/2000 of Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi, accepted. 47. Reference records be sent back to the trial Court for proceeding further in the matter under law.