Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 24.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 28/1997 - State of Rajasthan vs. Surajmal & Ors., whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and ordered to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly, stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 11.1996 accused Surajmal gave an oral information at Police Station, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur wherein he informed that Smt. Damma Devi- wife of his brother Premsukh, was harassing his family members for the last three years and her father PW. 1 Chaina Ram has also lodged a criminal complaint against his father so relations between them were strained. He also stated that the father of the accused Shri Chailla Ram separated Premsukh and his wife on 11.1996 and they started living separately . He further stated that on 11.1996, in the evening he visited the house of his brother Premsukh and there he found the wife of Prem Sukh Smt. Damma Devi was cooking meals. On seeing her, he lost temper and caught hold of her and dragged her upto the front room of the house. He also informed that he took out a knife and inflicted injuries on the person of Smt. Damma Devi, Smt. Damma Devi fell down in the room and the dead body is lying at the spot. The Knife, by which the injuries were inflicted, was presented in the police station to PW. 17 Shri Rajendra Singh, who reduced that oral information in Rojnamcha Aam, which is Ex. P/28A and the copy thereof is Ex. P/20. 3. The report so reduced in writing in Ex. P/28A disclosed a cognizable case, as such, to verify the contents Shri Rajendra Singh proceeded to the site. The knife so presented before PW. 17 was seized through Fard Ex. P/32 and same was sealed in presence of PW. 15 Madho Singh, ASI and PW. 16 Rawata Ram, Head Constable. The Fard Ex. P/2 is regarding site verification and recovery of dead body at the instance of accused contains the signatures of accused as well as witnesses PW. 5 Virendra Singh and PW. 12 Prabat Singh. The accused while informing PW. 15 Madho Singh, ASI and PW. 16 Rawata Ram, Head Constable. The Fard Ex. P/2 is regarding site verification and recovery of dead body at the instance of accused contains the signatures of accused as well as witnesses PW. 5 Virendra Singh and PW. 12 Prabat Singh. The accused while informing PW. 17 about the incident also handed over a letter to PW. 17 Rajendra Singh wherein it was mentioned that Smt. Damma Devi, his Bhabhi was killed by him. The letter submitted by accused Surajmal was taken by the police through Memo Ex. P/30 in the presence of PW. 15 Madho Singh and PW. 16 Rawta Ram. Ex. P/31. is the original letter presented by the accused. It was noticed that two buttons (Art. 2) were missing from the shirt worn by accused. The shoes worn by the accused Surajmal were also having blood spots. Accused Surajmal was read over the information so reduced in writing by PW. 17 Shri Rajendra Singh in Rojnamcha and he thereafter for the purpose of verification of information went to the spot on the same day in the evening at about 7.50 P.M. where the incident had taken place. In the eastern side of the front room of the house he found dead body of deceased Smt. Damma Devi stained with human blood. There were various injuries on her chest, stomach, ribs and hands etc. Since it was found that murder has been committed and the offence so committed was one under Sec. 302 IPC, as such the first information report for registering a case was sent to PS Jhanwar through Bhanwar Singh Constable and case No. 172 dated 11.1996 was registered under Sec. 302 against the accused persons. It shall be pertinent to mention here that PW. 1 father of deceased Shri Chaina Ram also submitted a written report on the spot at 11 P.M. regarding dowry death against accused Surajmal and his family members and since FIR No. 172 dated 11.1996 was already registered in the matter, as such Sec. 498A of IPC was added and the written report was tagged with the papers of FIR No. 172 dated 11.1996. 4. after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate against accused persons namely Surajmal, Chailla Ram, Smt. Sayari and Premsukh under Secs. 302, 302/120B & 498A IPC. 5. 4. after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate against accused persons namely Surajmal, Chailla Ram, Smt. Sayari and Premsukh under Secs. 302, 302/120B & 498A IPC. 5. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides framed charge against accused Chailla Ram S/o Motilal, Premsukh S/o Chailla Ram, Smt. Sayari W/o Chailla Ram under Sec. 498A and Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120 of IPC. Against accused Surajmal charge under Secs. 498A and 302 IPC was framed. Accused denied the charges framed against them and claimed trial. Accused Chailla Ram died during the course of trial after recording the statements under Sec. 31 Cr.PC, therefore, his name was deleted from the array of accused persons. 6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW. 1 Chaina Ram (father of the deceased), PW. 2 Jamna (mother of the deceased), PW. 3 Narayanram, PW. 4 Bhabhootaram (owner of the house), PW. 5 Parbat Singh (who is motbir of Ex. P/2 with regard to the place of incident and the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused), PW. 6 Shivaram (who is a neighbour), PW. 7 Bhimsingh (who is also a neighbour), PW. 8 Jagdish (a witness with regard to previous incident with Chailla Ram). PW. 9 Sanjay Mathur, Photographer, who took photographs at the site Exs. P/4 to P/22. PW. 10 Jyotish is a witness regarding the incident dated 30.10.1996 and PW. 11 Kansingh is the Head Constable and a Motbir witness of Ex. P/23, P/24, & P/25 which are respectively Memos of Note-book & Register, Arrest of accused Chailla Ram dated 111.1996. and arrest of accused Premsukh dated 111.1996 PW. 12 Virendra Singh is the Head Constable who at the relevant time was posted in the S.P. Office, Jodhpur and is a witness in relation to Exs. P/26 & 27 which are forwarding letter of S.P. Office and receipt obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory by him on 112.1996. PW. 13 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma is a witness who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Damma Devi and proved Ex. P/27 Postmortem Report. PW. 14 Mohanchand was SHO PS Jhanwar at the relevant time, who registered the case on the basis of oral information Ex. P/28A and chalked out a formal first information report Ex. P/29. PW. PW. 13 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma is a witness who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Damma Devi and proved Ex. P/27 Postmortem Report. PW. 14 Mohanchand was SHO PS Jhanwar at the relevant time, who registered the case on the basis of oral information Ex. P/28A and chalked out a formal first information report Ex. P/29. PW. 15 Madho Singh ASI and PW. 16 Rawata Ram Head Constable are the Motbirs of Exs. P/30, P/31 & P/32 which are respectively seizure memos of a letter submitted by accused confessing the guilt, the letter produced by accused Surajmal and the knife presented by the accused. PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, was the SHO, PS Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, at the relevant time and Investigating Officer of the Case. PW. 18 Roopa Ram is the Messenger, who had taken the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory from Police Station. In all 41 documents were exhibited by the prosecution and in defence Ex. D/1 was exhibited. 7. After close of the evidence of the prosecution, statements under Sec. 313 CrPC were recorded wherein the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The Learned trial Judge after hearing both sides convicted accused Surajmal and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. The rest of the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. .8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant so also the Public Prosecutor at a great length and perused the material available on record. .9. In this appeal, following submissions have been raised by the learned Counsel for accused appellant: .(i) That, the confessional statement regarding committing murder of Smt. Damma Devi before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh by the accused is not an admission in evidence as the same is hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act. .(ii) That, recovery of dead body at the instance of accused cannot be said to be reliable. According to the learned Counsel, as per Ex. P/28A the location of the house was mentioned in the information, therefore, in view of that PW. 17 knew the location of the house as well as the dead body lying there. Therefore, it cannot be presumed to be proved that accused got recovered the dead body of deceased Smt. Damma Devi. .(iii) That, the recovery of buttons at the place of incident cannot be relied upon. 17 knew the location of the house as well as the dead body lying there. Therefore, it cannot be presumed to be proved that accused got recovered the dead body of deceased Smt. Damma Devi. .(iii) That, the recovery of buttons at the place of incident cannot be relied upon. According to the learned Counsel, in the site map Ex. P/4, one blood-stained button of four holes with thread was lying near the dead body whereas Ex. P/5 shows that one green colour plastic button was lying near the dead body and Ex. P/7 Recovery Memo shows that plastic button of our holes of light green colour was found whereas PW. 5 Parbat Singh, who is motbir witness of Exs. P/4, 5 & 7 stated that two buttons were found lying on the sport of which one having a thread, the recovery of button is therefore, doubtful. It was also submitted that the police persons were made Motbir witnesses whereas independent corroboration was required. .(iv) That, the recovery of alleged knife Art. 1 recovered by PW. 17 Rajendra Singh through Ex. P/32 is false in the absence of independent witnesses. .(v) That the FSL report Ex. P/38 shows human blood found on the clothes, knife and the shoes worn by accused appellant but the blood group could not be detected, therefore, FSL report Ex. P/38 is of no assistance to the prosecution. .(vi) That, the written confession of the accused appellant by submitting a letter Ex. P/31 before the police officer is not admissible in evidence and is hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act. .(vii) That, finger prints were not lifted by the police from allegedly recovered knife and the doors of the house where the dead body was lying. .(viii) That, the seal used for sealing the articles was not handed over to Motbir witnesses and the same was lying at the police station. This fact shows that the sealing of the articles could be tempered. .10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment and order dated 24.2001 and submitted that the same is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. .Therefore, it requires no interference by this Court. .11. Before proceeding further, the medical evidence produced in this case has to be seen which is found in the statement of PW. 13 Dr. .Therefore, it requires no interference by this Court. .11. Before proceeding further, the medical evidence produced in this case has to be seen which is found in the statement of PW. 13 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma, who has conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased. The doctor noticed following ante-mortem injuries on dead body as have been mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. P/27. 1.Incised wound -2-1/2 x 1 cm x m deep on the dorsal asp. of Rt. forearm m/3. 2.Incised wound 01 x0.5 cm x m, deep on the ventral asp of Rt. forearm m/3. 3.Stab incised wound - 2-1/2 x 1 cm. x P thorasic cavity deep on the Rt. ant. axillary line below arm pit bet. 3rd and 4th 2e.c space- the pleura is cut and the lung is cut. Size - 2-1/2 x 1 cm x Lung tissue deep. 4.Stab Incised wound - 2-1/2 x 2 cm. x thorasic cavity deep place -5 cm. Lat. to Rt. nipple -on dissection there is a cut in Pluera and lung - Size 2 x 1-1/2 cm x Lungs tissue deep. 5.Incised wound - 2 x 1 cm x m. deep in front of Rt. shoulder. 6.Stab incised wound - 4 x 1 cm x thorsic cavity deep 4 cm. below Rt. nipple - on dissection there is cut in pleural, Lungs and Lt. Ventrical of the Heart Size 3 x 1 cm. going through - Pluera, Lung & Heart 7.Incised wound - 2 x 1 cm. x m. deep placed 13 cm. below suprasternal natch in the midline Lt. side. 8.Stab Incised wound 2½ x 1 cm. x abdominal cavity deep on Lt. Side of epigastic region -On dissection - there is cut in the Lt. Lobe of Liver. Size - 2 x 1 cm. x tissue deep. 9.Incised wound - 2 x ½ cm. x m. deep on dorsal asp. of Lt. forearm m/3. 10.Incised wound 2 x 1 cm. x m. deep on Lt. arm m/3. 11.Incised wound - 1 x 0.5 cm. x m. deep on ventral asp. of Lt. forearm m/3. 12. PW. 13 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma has proved the Postmortem Report Ex. P/27 and according to the report the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to lung, heart and liver. Thus, the fact established by the Postmortem Report Ex. x m. deep on ventral asp. of Lt. forearm m/3. 12. PW. 13 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma has proved the Postmortem Report Ex. P/27 and according to the report the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to lung, heart and liver. Thus, the fact established by the Postmortem Report Ex. P/27 and the statement of PW. 13 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma is that the cause of death of deceased was due to ante-mortem injuries inflicted on the lung, heart and liver and this being the position it can easily by concluded that the death of deceased was homicidal and unnatural. 13. Before proceeding further, it is to be seen as to what is the circumstantial evidence and what is its evidentiary value. In criminal jurisprudence, circumstantial evidence is that which relates to service of other facts then the fact in issue; but which by experience have been found so associated with the fact in issue in relation of cause and effect that it leads to a satisfactory conclusion. It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. However, the Court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conclusions purely on circumstantial evidence as in evidence there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is that the former directly establishes the commission of the offence whereas the later does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of the guilt. .14. The Honble Supreme Court has consistently held that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the following tests :- .(a) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; .(b) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. .(c) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no scope from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and .(d) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. .15. .15. In the present case, there is no direct evidence against the accused appellant and the prosecution has placed reliance on the following circumstances, which were considered by the learned trial Court :- .(i) Oralinformation lodged before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, SHO, PS Chopasani Road, Housing Board, Jodhpur. .(ii) While lodging report, accused presented a human blood-stained knife Art. 1 before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh. (iii) When accused orally informed about the incident on 11.1996 to PW. 17 Rajendra Singh at that time he was wearing shoes Art. 6 stained with human blood. (iv) When the accused gave oral information to PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, he was wearing a shirt on which human blood spots were available. .(v) When the accused presented himself at the police station buttons of his shirt were missing and on the spot Art. 2 was found and other buttons of the shirt of accused were the same as per the report of FSL Ex. P/39. .(vi) Recovery of dead body on the basis of information of the accused as the same was recovered at his instance. (vii) Strained relations between the family of the accused and the family of deceased satisfactorily indicates about the motive of the accused in the present matter to commit murder. 16. In the light of principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and in the light of submissions made by both sides, we propose to examine as to whether prosecution in this case was able to complete the Chain of circumstances regarding guilt of the accused. First Circumstance : Oral information lodged before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, SHO, PS Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, Ex. P/28A. 17. The contention of learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has been that Ex. P/28A, the oral information of accused Surajmal, is a confessional statement, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration. First Circumstance : Oral information lodged before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, SHO, PS Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, Ex. P/28A. 17. The contention of learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has been that Ex. P/28A, the oral information of accused Surajmal, is a confessional statement, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 (Agnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar), in which it has been held that the first information recorded under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as such is not substantive evidence, but may be used to corroborate the informant under Sec. 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Sec. 145 of the Act if the information is called as a witness and where the accused himself gives the first information, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Sec. 8 of the Evidence Act and if the information is non-confessional, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Sec. 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant. 18. The other authority of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel on this point AIR 1972 SC 922 (Khatri Hemraj Amulakh vs. State of Gujarat) also propounds the same view. 19. In yet another decision relied upon by the learned Counsel RLW 1997 (2) Rajasthan, it has been held that first information report submitted by the accused is not to be considered against the accused if it contains admission in light of Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 20. In view of above authoritative pronouncements, one thing which emerges out is that on the basis of Ex. P/28 inference cannot be drawn that accused inflicted injury by knife to victim which resulted in her death but at the same time in view of the observations made by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nagesia (Supra) that the fact of his giving information is admissible as an evidence of his conduct under Sec. 8 of the Evidence Act, regarding circumstance No. 1 there is no difficulty in reaching to the conclusion that this much inference can be drawn that it was the accused who lodged the oral information report Ex. P/28A about the crime before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh. P/28A about the crime before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh. Second Circumstance : While lodging oral report, the accused presented a human blood-stained knife before PW. 17 Rajendra Singh. 21. In relation to above circumstance, the statements of PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, PW. 15 Madho Singh and PW. 16 Rawata Ram are relevant. It has been stated by PW. 17 Rajendra Singh that accused appeared before him at the police station and presented a knife. The knife (Art.1) was smeared with blood and same was seized through Memo Ex. P/32. Ex. P/32 bears the signatures of accused and other persons. The witness has deposed that then and there knife Art. 1 was seized in a separate bag and the seal was affixed as a sample seal on Ex. P/32. The above statement of PW. 17 Rajendra Singh is corroborated by PW. 14 Madho Singh, who at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the police station. The witness has deposed that on that day at about 6.55 PM accused came to the police station and presented a knife Art. 1 to the SHO PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, which was smeared with blood and same was sealed by PW. 17 Rajendra Singh. Another witness, who has supported the version of PW. 17 Rajendra Singh is PW. 16 Rawata Ram. The witness says that he was Head Constable posted at the police station on 11.1996 and on that day accused Surajmal presented a knife. The knife was seized and sealed. The witness has corroborated the statement of PW. 17 Rajendra Singh. 22. The main attack of the learned Counsel for the accused is that the witness of Fard & seizure are the police witnesses and in the absence of independent witness their testimony is not to be considered. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kochu Methi Kannu Salim vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1998 SCC (Cr.) 947. 23. It shall be pertinent to mention here that present one is not a case where accused while remaining in police custody gave information to a police officer but it is a case where at the time of lodging verbal information accused at his own has presented a knife. 23. It shall be pertinent to mention here that present one is not a case where accused while remaining in police custody gave information to a police officer but it is a case where at the time of lodging verbal information accused at his own has presented a knife. At that time, the police witnesses were present and to delay the matter for that matter and to wait for independent witness could not have been a proper procedure of seizing knife Art. 1. Again, it is also a matter for consideration that as to whether a witness being a police witness, his testimony should be discarded in its totality ? The citation relied upon by the learned Counsel in our humble opinion is not of any assistance for the reason that facts were different there. It shall be useful to refer here to a decision reported in 2001 SCC 248 (Cr.) State Govt. of NCT , Delhi vs. Sunil & Anr. wherein the Honble Apex Court has held as under :- "It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts the search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code." The Honble Court also held: "It is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused, the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by the independent witnesses. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth." The Honble Supreme Court further held: "We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy". 24. It has further been held by Honble Supreme Court that when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such record of the police, the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, not to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent person in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions. 25. The facts as discussed above and in view of the observations made by Honble Supreme Court, it appears that the witnesses deposed in the Court correctly the things happened. 25. The facts as discussed above and in view of the observations made by Honble Supreme Court, it appears that the witnesses deposed in the Court correctly the things happened. Thus, in our opinion also the fact appears to be amply proved that it was the accused who presented knife before PW . 17 and Ex. P/32 was prepared. 26. It is to be seen here that PW. 16 Rawata Ram was Head Constable at the relevant time in the police station. He was also in charge of the Malkhana. The witness has stated that the sealed packet of knife Art. 1 was kept in the Malkhana. The entries in the Malkhana Register were made Ex. P/36. The witnesses proved Memo Ex. P/32, which contains the signatures of the accused and other witnesses. The sealed packet was taken by constable Rugha Ram to deposit the same in Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur through the Office of S.P., Jodhpur. PW. 18 Rugha Ram has supported the version of witnesses that he received the sealed packet in sealed condition. PW. 12 /Virendra Singh is a witness, who at the relevant time was posted as Head Constable in the S.P. Office, Jodhpur and was looking after the matters concerning FSL. This witness stated that the packets received by him were duly sealed and after inspecting that seals and preparing forwarding letter the same were handed over to Rugha Ram, PW. 18. The witness has proved the copy of forwarding letter Ex. P/26. On deposit of the sealed packets in FSL, the FSL after examining the blood on knife (Art.1) vide its report Ex. P/37 opined that it was stained with human blood, however, the blood group could not be identified. .27. It will be pertinent to refer here to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 Criminal Law Reports (SC) 244 (State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that failure of the Serologist to detect the origin of the blood due to disintegration of the serum in the meanwhile does not .mean that the blood stuck on the axe would not have been human blood at all. Sometimes it happens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to hematological changes and plasmatic coagulation that a Serologist might fail to detect the origin of the blood. Sometimes it happens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to hematological changes and plasmatic coagulation that a Serologist might fail to detect the origin of the blood. Will it then mean that the blood would be of some other origin? Such a guess work that blood on the other axe would have been animal blood is unrealistic and far fetched in the broad spectrum of this case. The effort of the criminal Court should not be prowl for imaginative doubts. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscious mind entertains with some objectivity, no benefits can be claimed by the accused. .28. In view of evidence led before the Court it was established by that the knife presented by accused before PW. 17 had human blood on it. .Third Circumstance : When accused orally informed about the incident dated 11.1996 to PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, at that time he was wearing shoes Art. 6 stained with human blood. 29. To examine the above circumstance, relevant evidence led by the prosecution is the evidence of PW. 17 Rajendra Singh, PW. 15 Madho Singh and PW. 6 Rawata Ram. These witnesses have clearly stated in their statements about the fact of presence of accused at the police station and at that time his wearing shoes Art. 6 stained with human blood. Since there were red spots in a packet and Memo Ex. P/33 was prepared at that time. The packet containing the shoes was deposited in the Malkahana of police station. PW. 15 Rawata Ram has proved that the same was kept in sealed condition in the Malkhana.