JUDGMENT 1. - Krishna Kumar @ Krishna the appellant herein was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri District Jhunjhunu, who vide judgment dated November 20, 1998 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :U/s. 302, Indian Penal Code : To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 376, Indian Penal Code : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 397, Indian Penal Code : To supper rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprison- ment for two months. The substantive sentencess were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per prosecution story informant Indraj (PW-4) on December 17, 1995 submitted a written report at Police Station Khetri Nagar with the averments that his sister Gora was residing in village Singhana alongwith her son Lala Ram. The driver Krishna Kumar resident of Jainnabad Dhana (Haryana) came to Lala Ram and consumed wine in the intervening night of December 16 and 17, 1995. Sher Singh and Sant Lal saw Krishna Kumar there. When Sher Singh and Sant Lal left, Krishna Kumar murdered Gora and took away silver anklet from her feet. In the morning of the next day his nephew called him and informed about the incident. On that report a case under Sections 302, 376 and 397, Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested. Necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri District Jhunjhunu. Charges under Sections 302, 376 and 397, Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code the accused claimed innocence and stated that he was driver of Bhika Ram (PW 6) and when he demanded salary, he was falsely implicated in the instant case. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. The appellant while confined in Central Jail Jodhpur wrote to the Chief Justice on August 25, 2006 that though he submitted jail appeal vide dispatch No. 848 dated November 30, 1998, h did not receive any response. He wanted to know as to who was his counsel and what happened to his appeal. The letter received from the appellant was registered as Misc. Petition and Mr. Gopal Garg, learned counsel was appointed Amicus Curiae. On being enquired it was found that no appeal was received in the High Court Learned Amicus Curiae thereafter filed criminal appeal on November 15, 2006 along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case delay in filing the appeal was condoned and appeal got admitted. 4. We have herd rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 5. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-11) deceased Gora sustained following ante mortem injuries : 1. Deep abrasion with contusion oval in shape with marks of toot bite on both sides of face on cheeks. 2. Abrasion over forehead 6 in number. 3. Scratches vital contusion over both legs. 4. Abrasion with contusion 10 x 4 cm over D12 to L2 vertebra over back. 5. Deep abrasion (scratches) with contusion on both sides of neck. On Rt. side of neck the injury mark is slightly higher broader deep brown in colour. In the opinion of Dr. Ravneer Singh (PW 11) the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from throttling (a means of strangulation). 6. Since, there was no eye-witness of the occurrence the prosecution adduced circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant before learned trial Judge. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence learned trial Judge held that in the preceding night the appellant had consumed liquor, ate meat and slept in the Nohra (house) belonging to the deceased and in the wee hours left Nohra without informing anybody. He could only be nabbed after about five months. Silver anklets belonging to the deceased got recovered at the instance of appellant. His foot prints were found near the place of incident. The appellant thus was found guilty. We proceed to consider the evidence placed on record to prove these circumstances.LAST SEEN : 7. He could only be nabbed after about five months. Silver anklets belonging to the deceased got recovered at the instance of appellant. His foot prints were found near the place of incident. The appellant thus was found guilty. We proceed to consider the evidence placed on record to prove these circumstances.LAST SEEN : 7. Coming to the circumstances of last seen we notice that Sher Singh (PW 3), Indraj (PW 4), Sant Lal (PW 5), Bhika Ram (PW 6) and Lal Chand (PW 17) have been examined by the prosecution to establish that on the day when Gora (deceased) was found murdered, the appellant in the preceding night had consumed liquor and slept in the house of deceased. He was alone in the Nohra and in the wee hours escaped from Nohra. Sant Lal (PW 5) in his deposition stated that on the day of incident around 9 p.m. he, Sher Singh, Krishna Kumar and Lal Chand consumed liquor and ate meat. Thereafter he and Sher Singh left and Lal Chand and appellant remained there and despite resistance from Lal Chand, appellant slept there. Bhika Ram (PW 6), nephew of deceased, deposed that in the preceding night around 10 p.m. the appellant had threatened Lal Chand that if was not allowed to sleep they all would weep in the morning. Lal Chand (PW 17), son of deceased, in his deposition stated that appellant. Sant Lal and Sher Singh cooked meat and consumed liquor. After taking food Sher Singh and Sant Lal went to their home but the appellant slept there. In the morning his mother was found murdered and the appellant was not there. Her mother was raped, her feet were cut and anklets were taken away. 8. In Subramani v. State, (2003) 10 SCC 185 where the body of deceased was found where she and the accused were last seen together and thereafter the accused was not seen in the house after the incident and he had no acceptable explanation for his absence. The burden shifted on the accused to explain the circumstances as to when and how he parted company with the deceased. Where accused's only response was of denial, the only inference that could be drawn was one of the guilt of the accused and he was rightly convicted for murdering and raping the deceased. The burden shifted on the accused to explain the circumstances as to when and how he parted company with the deceased. Where accused's only response was of denial, the only inference that could be drawn was one of the guilt of the accused and he was rightly convicted for murdering and raping the deceased. In the instant case the prosecution is able to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in the house and thereafter he escaped in the wee hours. The appellant was nabbed after about five months and he had no explanation as to when and how he parted company with the deceased. Thus the ratio indicated in Subramani's case (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae urged that the witnesses being the close relatives of the deceased could not have been relied upon. We find no merit in this submission. 10. In Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1386, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under (Para 4) : "We have gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses. No doubt PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 are kith and kin of the deceased but they have given a truthful version of the whole occurrence. Even Ex. P-1 all the material particulars are mentioned particularly the fact that the deceased was dragged to the house of A-1 and that there he was tied and beaten. As noted already even A-1 admitted that the deceased was tied in his house but added that because of the scuffle between PW 6 and the deceased, latter was tied. Immediately after registering the crime, the SHO went to the house of A-1 and found the deceased tied and he was having bleeding injuries. Thus the time, place of occurrence and the cause of death are established beyond doubt. So far as the presence and participation of the appellants are concerned there are statements of the eye-witnesses consistently to this effect. Both the Courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for accepting the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The evidence adduced in defence is not at all material and the Courts below have rightly rejected the same. The trial Court acquitted Keshra Ram A-6 giving the benefit of doubt. Both the Courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for accepting the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The evidence adduced in defence is not at all material and the Courts below have rightly rejected the same. The trial Court acquitted Keshra Ram A-6 giving the benefit of doubt. In our view the same in any manner does not affect the evidence of eye-witnesses who are the most natural witnesses. We see absolutely no merits in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly." 11. In Ram Lakhan v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3429, held that the evidence of close relatives of deceased is not liable to be rejected on ground of interested witnesses. What is necessary is that Court should scrutinise evidence of such witness carefully. 12. In Baitullah v. State of U.P., AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3946, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that evidence of interested witness cannot be discarded merely on ground that he is interested. It is normally expected that witness would not leave out real culprits and rope in innocent persons. 13. In Tapubha Bhagwanji v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 2794 : (2002) 2 Femi-Juris CC 140 (SC) the Apex Court held as under (Para 12) : "The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are witnesses who in normal course of event are expected to know abut the incident. Their deposition do not reveal any good reason for rejecting their evidence as untrustworthy or unreliable. Nothing has been brought on record either in cross-examination of the witnesses concerned or in any other evidence to show any good reason as to why they should falsely implicate the accused in the case. Thus rejection of their testimony on ground that they are interested witnesses being in relation of deceased, not proper." 14. In Angnoo v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 Supreme Court 296, the Apex Court held that the fact of relationship would add to value of his evidence because he would be interested in getting the real culprit, rather than innocent persons, punished. 15. In Angnoo v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 Supreme Court 296, the Apex Court held that the fact of relationship would add to value of his evidence because he would be interested in getting the real culprit, rather than innocent persons, punished. 15. In Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (1) RLW 58 (SC), where the venue of the incident and time was such that no independent witness could be expected to be present the evidence of related witnesses was considered.The fact of absence of details of occurrence in FIR, which are consistent with the detailed narration of the eye-witnesses in the evidence, was considered and held that the FIR cannot be rejected. 16. In Karitk Malhar v. State of Bihar, JT (1995) 8 SC 425, the Apex Court held that "we may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being partisan witness should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh case AIR 1953 Supreme Court 364, in which this Court expressed its surprise over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the bar that relatives were not independent witness. Speaking through Vivan Bose, J., the Court observed (in para 25 of AIR 1953 SC) : "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rules. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur." RECOVERY OF ANKLETS AT THE INSTANCE OF APPELLANT 17. In regard to circumstance of recovery of anklets at the instance of appellant, Shiv Pal Singh, Investigating Officer (PW 16) deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant (Ex. P-18) silver anklets of deceased got recovered. The appellant had mortgaged silver anklets through one Mool Cand Khatik with Suresh Khati resident of Surya Nagar Jaipur. Silver anklets got recovered at the instance of appellant from Suresh Khati vide recovery memo (Ex. P-9). Silver anklets got seized and sealed vide memo Ex,. P-19.ABSCONDING : 18. P-18) silver anklets of deceased got recovered. The appellant had mortgaged silver anklets through one Mool Cand Khatik with Suresh Khati resident of Surya Nagar Jaipur. Silver anklets got recovered at the instance of appellant from Suresh Khati vide recovery memo (Ex. P-9). Silver anklets got seized and sealed vide memo Ex,. P-19.ABSCONDING : 18. From the testimony of Shiv Pal Singh, IO (PW 16) it is proved that the appellant escaped from the scene of occurrence on December 17, 1995 and could be nabbed after about five months. In Jose v. State of Kerala, 1984 Cr LJ 748, it was indicated that absconding from the scene for over a month, would establish the guilt of the accused and rule out hypothesis of innocence. 19. In the ultimate analysis, we find a combination of facts creating network through them there is no escape for the appellant. From the material collected it is established that the appellant consumed liquor and slept near the place of incident and disappeared in the wee hours. Further on arrest of the appellant silver anklets of the deceased got recovered from Suresh Khati at the instance of appellant. The explanation of appellant that he was falsely implicated because he demanded salary, does not inspire confidence. The evidence collected by the prosecution is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that appellant is guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is com- plete and incapable of any explanation or any other hypothesis than of the guilt of the appellant. 20. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302, 376 and 397, Indian Penal Code are confirmed.Since appeal of the appellant has been dismissed misc. petition stands disposed of.Appeal dismissed. *******