JUDGMENT S.P. KUKDAY, J.:- Appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. l,000/- in default, to suffer S.I. for six months, by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. Appellant has impugned this order of conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 2. Appellant came to village Bhokar I in the month of January, 2003 and started living in a thatched hut on the hillock near Samatanagar. He started collecting donations for constructing temple of goddess on the hillock and was charging fees to the villagers who were approaching him for herbal treatment. Soon he came to be regarded as “Kisan Maharaj.” Inhabitants of Samatanagar, which is at the foot of the hillock, were offering their services to the appellant. However, when the appellant developed illicit intimacy with Anjanabai who was a married woman, inhabitants of Samatanagar were displeased. The appellant, then, left the village for some period. On his return, he started living with Anjanabai and used to lock her in the hut whenever he left the house. Some of the inhabitants took disadvantage of the predicament o! the appellant and were blackmailing him. On 3rd September, 2003, Anjanabai broke the wall of the thatched hut and ran away. On 4th September, 2003. Madhavrao (P.W.3) was returning to his house, his wife Adelubai, sister Laxmibai (P.W.6), her son Poshatti (since deceased), Namdeo and Uttam at about 8.00 p.m. While they were passing from Shivaji square, appellant called the deceased and took him to hotel near Bus Stand. One of his patients Hanmant Hamberde approached the appellant for medicine. Mason – Sk. Lal also came there. Four of them took meals. Afterwards, appellant and the deceased went towards the hill. At midnight on that day, Rajabai (P.W.2) and other inhabitants of Samatanagar heard noise of laughing, weeping and beating from the hut of the appellant, but nobody went there. On the next morning, wearing blood stained clothes; appellant approached Sumanbai (P.W.4) for making enquiries about Anjanabai and told her that he has committed murder. On getting the news P.W.3 and P.W.6 went to the hillock. They found dead body of Poshatti near the hut of the appellant. On the next morning, wearing blood stained clothes; appellant approached Sumanbai (P.W.4) for making enquiries about Anjanabai and told her that he has committed murder. On getting the news P.W.3 and P.W.6 went to the hillock. They found dead body of Poshatti near the hut of the appellant. P.W.3 lodged complaint with Bhokar Police that his nephew was killed by the appellant to ensure that the deceased, does not disclose his illicit relations with Anjanabai to the villagers. On the basis of this report (Exh.20), offence was registered against the appellant and investigation was taken over by PSI Udhav Ingole (P.W.9). The Investigating Officer held inquest on the dead body. The deceased had sustained several injuries and was sporting twelve jingling bells around his waist. It was found that the murder was committed inside the hut. There was a stone on the cot. Blood was found on the floor and on the plastic sheets covering thatched walls. Marks of dragging were seen from the hut till the place where dead body was lying outside the compound. Carpet, plastic sheets and stainless steel glass, covered with blood, stone, blood-stained soil and control soil were attached under Panchnama of the scene of occurrence (Exh.14). Dr. Pawade performed post-mortem and prepared report (Exh. 24) certifying that the deceased died due to head injury. During the course of investigation, appellant was arrested on 5th September, 2003. Blood-stained clothes on his person were attached under Panchnama (Exh.28-A). On 9th appellant made a confessional statement in presence of Laxman Nakkalwad (P.W.I). Knife and pinch buried near the compound of the hut produced by the appellant were attached under memorandum panchnama (Exh.16). Report of the Forensic Laboratory (Exh.24) disclosed that blood of the deceased was detected on the carpet, plastic sheets, metallic glass and Kafni and shawl of the appellant. Human blood was found on the knife and pinch (chuta). On completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. In his examination conducted under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appellant mentioned that there was blood in his clothes because he had sustained injury on his palm during a fight with Anjanabai who fled from the hut on that day and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.l Laxman is a panch to the Inquest (Exh.13), Spot Panchnama (Exh.14), memorandum of confessional statement of appellant (Exh.15) and Seizure memo (Exh.16). 5. Rajabai (P.W.2) stated that appellant had developed illicit intimacy with Anjanabai. She ran away from the hut on the day of occurrence, on that night, she and other inhabitants of the locality heard noise of beating from the hut of the appellant and that on the next day she learnt of the murder of the deceased. 6. Madhav Nakkalwad (P.W.3) and (P.W.6) Laxmibai (mother of the deceased) stated that on the day of incident, appellant took the deceased with him from Shivaji Square at about 8.00 to 9.00 p.m. They searched for the deceased as he did not return, but thought that he might have stayed with some one for the night. On the next day, they found his dead body near the hut of the appellant. 7. Sumanbai (P.W.4) stated that at about 7 O'clock in the morning, the appellant came to her house and told her not to allow Anjanabai to come to her house and confessed that he has committed a murder. She noticed blood on his clothes. 8. Dr. Pawade performed autopsy. He noticed the following injuries: 1. Incised wound over forehead size 2 cm x 1 cm. bone deep. 2. Two incised wounds over right cheek 1.3 cm. x 11/2 cm. deep and 1 cm. below right lower ye lid. It was pears the sinus 2.2. cm. x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. 3. Incised wound over right lower lip 1 cm x 0.5 cm. 4. Incised wound over left thumb 2 cm x l. cm. 5. Abrasion and contusion over lower part of chest 10 cm. x 4 cm. 6. Contusion and abrasion front side of neck below the thyroid cartilage - 11 cm x 4 cm diverting upward half of the neck. 7. Contusion and abrasion over penis. 8. Multiple abrasion over the left thigh and both hands. 9. Fracture of left chest rib 7.8 & 9th hemorrhage in left plural cavity. 10. CLW over the left frontal bone. 11. Right ear bleeding, white metal ring in right ear. 7. Contusion and abrasion over penis. 8. Multiple abrasion over the left thigh and both hands. 9. Fracture of left chest rib 7.8 & 9th hemorrhage in left plural cavity. 10. CLW over the left frontal bone. 11. Right ear bleeding, white metal ring in right ear. The internal injuries were (i) CLW over left frontal and temporal bone with hemorrhage under the scalp; (ii) incised wound over left forehead; (iii) depressed over shaped fracture of left temporal bone tearing brain matter; (iv) extra dural hemorrhage in temporal region; (v) fracture of 7th 8th and 9th ribs tearing left side and causing hemorrhage in plural cavity. 9. The autopsy Surgeon prepared post-mortem report (Exh.24) and opined that the death was due to the head injury which can be caused by the stone Art. B and other injuries can be caused by pinch Art. A. 10. Hanmant Hambarde (P.W.7) was taking treatment from the appellant for epilepsy. On that night he required medicine, thus, he approached the appellant who was at the hotel in front of Bus Stand. Appellant was with one boy and Sk. Lal joined them after some time. All of them took meals, appellant paid the bill and took the deceased towards his hut. The witness got the information regarding murder on the next day. 11. Devidas Ade (P.W.8) is a panch to seizure of clothes of the appellant under seizure memo (Exh.28-A). 12. PSI Udhav Ingole who is the Investigating Officer has narrated the process of collecting evidence during the course of investigation. After holding inquest and drawing Panchnama of the scene of occurrence, statements of witnesses were recorded. Blood stained under garments of the deceased were attached under Panchnama (Exh.31), The appellant was arrested on the same day at about 4.45 p.m. Blood stained Kafni and shawl on the person of the appellant were attached under Seizure memo (Exh.28-A). On 9-9-2003, appellant made confessional statement and produced blood stained knife and pinch buried by the side of eastern wall of the hut. On completion of the collection of evidence, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The appellant adopted defence of false implication. 13. On pragmatic appreciation of the evidence, the trial Judge found that the prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. On completion of the collection of evidence, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The appellant adopted defence of false implication. 13. On pragmatic appreciation of the evidence, the trial Judge found that the prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. Enumerating the proved circumstances in para 27 of the judgment, the trial Judge found that application of the theory of "last seen together" to the present case is justified in view of the circumstances that the offence was committed in the hut exclusively occupied by the appellant, blood of the deceased was found on the clothes which were on his person at the time of his arrest, discovery of the weapons and failure of the appellant to offer plausible explanation regarding his innocence. In conformity with this finding, the trial Judge convicted the appellant for the commission of murder of Poshatti Wagalwade and sentenced him to punishment, as stated earlier. 14. In support of the appeal, Smt. S.S. Jadhav would argue that in case based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to fully establish the circumstances from which conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn and the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude all the possibilities of the innocence of the accused. Learned counsel would argue that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had motive to commit murder and that he was the only person last seen with the deceased. For these propositions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Yuvraj Ambar Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(4) Crimes 296 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Mohan Shrawan Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2024. 15. The principles applicable to cases founded on the circumstantial evidence are by now well settled. In such a case, the prosecution must show that the circumstances established form a complete chain and exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. In the matter of Mohan Shrawan Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has referred to the tests which must be satisfied in a case depending on the circumstantial evidence. In the matter of Mohan Shrawan Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has referred to the tests which must be satisfied in a case depending on the circumstantial evidence. The tests to be satisfied in such cases are enumerated by the Apex court in the matter of Pad ala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706. In para 10 of the report, their Lordships observed: “10. Before adverting to the arguments C advanced by the learned counsel, we shall at the threshold, point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (l) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established: (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused: (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human provability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than 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 the innocence (See Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra).” 16. In the present case, the circumstances established by the prosecution are. (i) the deceased last seen alive in the company of the appellant; (ii). State of Maharashtra).” 16. In the present case, the circumstances established by the prosecution are. (i) the deceased last seen alive in the company of the appellant; (ii). the offence is committed in the hut of the appellant; (iii) blood of the deceased belonging to AB group is found on the Kafni and Shawl found on the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest; (iv) human blood was found on the knife and pinch discovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant; (v) the appellant confessed commission of the offence to P.WA ; (vi) jingling bells were tied around the waist of the deceased; and (vii) the appellant has not offered any explanation regarding the offence committed in his house during the course of the night. 17. The theory of “last seen together” is based on the proximity of place and time with the deceased having last seen alive together with the accused before his death. If the circumstances show that there is no possibility of anyone else being with the deceased since he was last seen with the accused till the time of his death, it is permissible to draw an inference regarding culpability of the accused in commission of the offence based on the theory of last seen together. In the process of analyzing the evidence and coming to the conclusion regarding complicity or innocence of the accused, it is permissible for the Court to draw logical presumptions from the proved facts. This principle is acknowledged in section 114 of the Evidence Act which permits the Court to presume existence of a fact which is likely to have happened, having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct. This exception to the general rule embodied in Section 60 of the Evidence Act that oral evidence should be direct, is approved by the Apex Court in the matter of State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohd. Omar reported in (2000)8 SCC 382 . In Para No.31 of the report, it is observed: “31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.” 18. In Yuvraj Ambar Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2006(4) Crimes 296 (SC) relied upon by the appellant, reference is made to earlier decision in the matter of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (JT 2006(4) SC 16 : 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1533 (S.C.)), wherein it is observed: “The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration.” 19. The theory of last seen together can be legitimately invoked in a case where the possibility of involvement of stranger can be excluded and the facts established, lead to the conclusion that the accused and the accused alone is the author of the crime. In such a case, the accused is obliged either to give a plausible explanation regarding his innocence or to own up the responsibility for the commission of the crime. In the present case, the prosecution relies on the theory of "last seen together". Commenting on this aspect, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the circumstances of last seen together is not properly established as mason Sk.Lal was also with the appellant and the deceased when they left the hotel after taking dinner. There is no foundation for this contention. Evidence of the first informant and P.W.6 - Laxmibai that the appellant took the deceased with him at about 8.00 p.m. from Shivaji Square is not controverted by the defence. There is no foundation for this contention. Evidence of the first informant and P.W.6 - Laxmibai that the appellant took the deceased with him at about 8.00 p.m. from Shivaji Square is not controverted by the defence. P.W.7 has testified that Sk.Lal had taken dinner with them and after the dinner, appellant and the deceased left for the hut of appellant on the hill. P.W.7 has not mentioned that Sk. Lal was with the deceased when they left the hotel. His evidence that accused and that boy with him went towards the top of the hill where accused was residing. Then went to my house does not support the interpretation that Sk. Lal was with the deceased and the appellant when P.W.7 saw them leaving the hotel. There is no ambiguity in the evidence of P.W.7 that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellant. In view of the clear evidence of P.W.?, coupled with the absence of explanation by the appellant, we can not persuade our salves to sustain contention of learned counsel that possibility of the stranger being involved is not excluded by the prosecution. Evidence of P.W.7 is further strengthened by the report of the Forensic Laboratory (Exh.34) which shows that blood of the deceased belonging to AB group was found on the kafni which was on the person of the appellant when he was arrested soon after the occurrence on the same day at 4.45 p.m. In addition to this, the prosecution has adduced evidence of P.W.4 regarding extra-judicial confession. P.W.4 is resident of Samatanagar which is at the foot of the hill where the appellant resided. The witness has no axe to grind and has no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellant. The simplicity of her evidence and the absence of any evidence to suggest possibility of false implication, there can be no impediment in accepting evidence of P.W.4 regarding the extra-judicial confession. Referring to the evidence of P.W.2, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that inhabitants of Samatanagar had knowledge of the illicit intimacy between the appellant and Anjanabai, therefore, threat by the deceased for exposing the appellant can not be the, motive for the commission of the offence. However, in view of the circumstances established by the prosecution, failure to establish motive is of no consequences. 20. However, in view of the circumstances established by the prosecution, failure to establish motive is of no consequences. 20. Considering the totality of the circumstances proved by the prosecution, in our considered opinion, no fault can be found with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge. We, thus, uphold the conviction of the appellant. In the result, the appeal must fail and is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.