JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of his conviction and sentence whereby for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.1994 and 26.02.1994 respectively passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T, Case No. 132/25 of 1991-91. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant Sagar Patar (P.W.-4) lodged sF.I.R. on 11.06.1990 alleging therein that his father-in-law Mangla Patar (P.W.- 3), resident of village - Banki had no issue except the informants wife and therefore, the informants son Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) used to look after the lands and house of his maternal grand father (NANA) i.e. Mangla Patar (P.W.-3). On 29.05.1990, at about 2:30 P.M., Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) had left the house for the house of his NANA namely Mangla Patar (P.W.-3) situated at village - Bank and when he did not return till 10.06.1990 from there, the informant went to the Mangla Patars place in his village to enquiry about his son and then Mangla Patar informed him that he had started with Sarveshwar Patar on 04.06.1990 for Mosabani and on the way, when both of them were sitting near Taldenga on the pitch road waiting for passenger Bus, Hari Ram Patar (appellant) of village Charaigora came and informed them that no Bus would be available on that day and therefore, he himself was going to Ghatshila on bicycle and thereafter he took Sarveshwar Patar (deceased) with him on bicycle and thereafter, Mangla Patar (P.W.-3) returned to his village. Then the informant started searching for his son but he could not be traced out. Ultimately, he went to village Charaigora to the place of this appellant and on being asked, this appellant stated that he had no knowledge about Sarveshawr Patar. Then the informant started searching for his son but he could not be traced out. Ultimately, he went to village Charaigora to the place of this appellant and on being asked, this appellant stated that he had no knowledge about Sarveshawr Patar. In the F.I.R., the informant alleged that Mangla Patar had four PHUPHERA Nephews (sons of the wifes brother) and the appellant was the youngest of them and he wanted share in the properties of Mangla Patar, but instead of giving share in the property, Mangla Patar sold his landed property and he gave Rs. 3,000/- to Sarveshwar Patar and therefore, the informant suspected that the appellant had kidnapped his son and thereafter, killed him. 3. The defence of the appellant was denial of the allegations and of false implication. 4. In order to establish the charges, altogether 11 witnesses were examined during trial on behalf of the prosecution. 5. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the actual occurrence and the whole case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, therefore, it has to be examined as to whether from the evidence, the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstances from which the conclusion can be drawn that it was the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased. 6. From the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that P.W.-1 Nagendra Nath Patar, P.W.-3 Mangla Patar. P.W-4 Sagar Patar and P.W.-7 Rajani Patar have stated that the mother of the deceased was the only issue of Mangla Patar (P.W.-3) and P.W-7 Rajani Patar. 7. P.W.-1 Nagendra Nath Patar and P.W-4 Sagar Patar have stated that P.W.-3 Mangla Patar sold away his lands. P.W-4 Sagar Patar, in his evidence has stated that P.W.-3 gave Rs. 5,0007-on 04.06.1990 to the deceased but however he stated that he had not seen himself the payment of such amount. P.W.-7 Rajani Patar has stated in her evidence that she gave a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the deceased. This fact finds corroborated from the fact that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was recovered from the house of the appellant at his instance only. 8. P.W.-7 Rajani Patar has stated in her evidence that she gave a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the deceased. This fact finds corroborated from the fact that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was recovered from the house of the appellant at his instance only. 8. P.W.-3 Mangal Patar has stated in his evidence that when he was going to reach Sarveshwar to his village, on the way they came across the accused who told him that since he was an old man and hence he need not trouble himself and he should return home and that he would reach Sarveshwar Patar to his village. He has further stated in his evidence that 3 to 4 days thereafter P.W-4 came and enquired about Sarveshwar informing him that he had not arrived at home, then he told P.W.-4 that he had sent Sarveshwar alongwith the accused. P.W-4 has also stated in his evidence that when Sarveshwar did not reach home, he went to P.W.-3 who on being enquired told him that the accused had taken Sarveshwar on his Cycle. 9. P.W.-7 has stated in her evidence that he husband and Sarveshwar left the home together and later on her husband came back and told her that Sarveshwar was taken away by the accused on his cycle. Therefore, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 have corroborated each other about the fact that the appellant had taken Sarveshwar Patar, the deceased on his bicycle from Taldenga. P.W.-3 is the only witness who last saw Sarveshwar, the deceased with the appellant. 10. P.W.-9, the Investigating Officer has stated that the appellant had confessed him and others that he had murdered the deceased in the Jungle and the money that he had taken from the deceased, was kept by him in his house. The Investigating Officer further stated that he along with the others, thereafter, went with the accused to his house and on his being pointed out, recovered a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the steel trunk from his house. Thereafter, on being pointed out by the appellant himself, the Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence in Chandi Jungle from where, human bones, shirt, pant, a pair of Chappal belonging to the deceased were recovered and seized in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 5. The seizure list was also prepared bearing signature of appellants also. Thereafter, on being pointed out by the appellant himself, the Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence in Chandi Jungle from where, human bones, shirt, pant, a pair of Chappal belonging to the deceased were recovered and seized in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 5. The seizure list was also prepared bearing signature of appellants also. P.W.-9 in his evidence has also stated that he sent the bones of the deceased for examination to the Medical College, Jamshedpur. 11. P.W.-10, the Assistant Professor in the Forensic Science of Medical College, Jamshedpur, in his evidence specifically stated that he examined the bones which revealed that all the bones belongs to a single male human and he had suffered several antemortem fracture and crack of different bones including that of skull and that the death had occurred within 1 to 3 months from the date of examination due to head injury. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.-10 corroborates the evidence of other witnesses. 12. From the evidence and the materials on record, it appears that the prosecution proved the fact that the deceased was given a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by P.W.-7 and with the said money he started with P.W.-3 for his village home and when both of them were awaiting at Taldenga on the wait of bus, the accused after ascertaining from P.W.-7 at their house that the deceased had left the house, met them at Taldenga and on the pretext that he would reach deceased to Ghatshila on his bicycle since no Bus was likely to come on that day, took away the deceased with him on his bicycle. It is also established by the prosecution that when after several days the deceased did not return, his father came to the house of the P.W.-3 to make enquiry from him and when P.W.-3 told him as to now the deceased had been taken away by the appellant, the informant and other witnesses went to the place of the appellant to enquire about his son who gave evasive reply declining to have any knowledge about the deceased. It has also been established by the prosecution that in course of investigation by the Police, confession was made by the appellant leading to recovery of Rs. It has also been established by the prosecution that in course of investigation by the Police, confession was made by the appellant leading to recovery of Rs. 3,000/- from a steel trunk kept in his house and thereafter, the appellant pointed out the Investigating Officer about the place of occurrence from which, the clothes chappals belonging to the deceased and human bones were found by the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid circumstances and event clearly and undoubtedly link the chain of events which without any doubt points out towards guilt of the appellant. 13. In view of the discussions and findings above we hold that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence charged against him. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed