JUDGMENT J.) (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.): The appellants have been charged, tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. Therefore this appeal against conviction. 2. Appellant no.1 is the nephew of appellant no.2. Appellant no.2 is alleged to be the husband of deceased-Sherabai. Shabera @ Shahabai (the deceased) left her first husband and started living with her parents. A child was born of their wed-lock namely; Baba Hasan (PW 9). The deceased, about 3 to 4 months prior to the date of incident left the house of appellant no.2 because of frequent quarrels and had been living with her brother, the complainant. As alleged, their dispute was settled, accused no.2 and the deceased went for a marriage and returned on the same day in the house of accused no.2. On 23.12.1995 accused no.2 and the deceased left together from the house of accused no.2 on a bicycle. On the same day, accused no.1, first left the house of accused no.2 on the bicycle followed by accused no.2 and the deceased. All of them left the house within a span of 10 to 15 minutes. The deceased did not return. Accused no.2 has not answered when PW 9 enquired about her mother, the deceased. On 24.12.1995 the complainant, therefore lodged an FIR (Ex.23) at Mohol Police Station. According to the complainant the deceased was murdered by the accused. An offence was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against both the accused by PSI Gaikwad (PW 16). 3. The investigation was further carried out by PSI Nagnath Gaikwad (PW 16). The dead body was identified and panchanama was prepared vide Exhibit 47. Articles were seized vide panchanama (Ex. 17). The dead body was sent to the Rural Hospital, Mohol for post-mortem. The Doctor issued the advance death certificate. The statements of 8 witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. The accused were referred to the Medical Officer for taking their blood samples. 4. On 26.12.1995 based on the statement leading to the discovery of weapon, the garments, which were on the persons of the accused, were recovered at the instance of accused no.1 from the bottom of Babul tree. On 27.12.1995 two bicycles were recovered from the house of accused no.2 with blood stains on the rubber grips of the handle of bicycles. On 26.12.1995 based on the statement leading to the discovery of weapon, the garments, which were on the persons of the accused, were recovered at the instance of accused no.1 from the bottom of Babul tree. On 27.12.1995 two bicycles were recovered from the house of accused no.2 with blood stains on the rubber grips of the handle of bicycles. All these articles were seized under panchanama (Exh.. 21). On 4.1.1996 the blood samples of the accused were forwarded to Chemical Analyser, Pune. (CA, Pune) On 18.12.1996 all muddemal articles were sent to CA, Pune. The Inquiry Officer IO) received the CA report, after completion of the investigation. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were chargesheeted thereafter. 5. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Accused no.1 in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and booked only on suspicion. He further stated that he fell down on a broken pieces of glass of the bottle. Therefore he had received injuries. Accused no.2 in his statement stated that there was no quarrel with the deceased. Both were living happily. The complainant and his mother were dealing in liquor business. He further stated that between 23.12.1995 to 24.12.1995 he was working at the Railway station; he was relieved from his duty at 12 noon on 12.12.1995. At about 6 p.m. on the same day, he came to know about the death of his wife (the deceased) at Madha and thereafter he rushed to Mohol, thereby, accused no.2 raised a plea of alibi. 6. The prosecution has examined in all 16 witnesses. There are two defence witnesses. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are: Vijaykumar Tipanna Jamadar (PW 1) who drew the sketch of the scene of offence. Madhukar Vishwanath Lokhande (PW 2) is panch witness on spot panchanama (Exh.17). Dattatraya Tukaram Khatke (PW 3) is also a panch witness in whose presence the I.O. has seized some of the articles which were on the dead body from P.C.Ramgude. Ramchandra Mahadeo Koli (PW 4) is also a panch witness of the seizure of rubber grips of the handle of bicycle. Vijay Anna Randive (PW 5) is the complainant. Madhukar Sitaram Chaudhar (PW 6) is also a panch witness on the recovery of certain articles at the hands of accused no.1. Ramchandra Mahadeo Koli (PW 4) is also a panch witness of the seizure of rubber grips of the handle of bicycle. Vijay Anna Randive (PW 5) is the complainant. Madhukar Sitaram Chaudhar (PW 6) is also a panch witness on the recovery of certain articles at the hands of accused no.1. Nivrutti Jalindar (PW 7) is panch in whose presence accused no.1 was arrested. Murlidhar Bhau Kshirsagar (PW 8) is a panch witness in whose presence the i.O. recovered bicycles at the instance of accused no.2. Baba Hasan Shaikh is child witness (PW 9) who is son of the deceased. Padma w/o.Sukhdeo Kumbhar (PW 10) is neighbour of the deceased. Chandrakant Dagadu Ashtu (PW 11) who went in search of deceased Shahabai to the house of accused no.2. Dr.Shailash Zadbuke (PW 12) is the Medical Officer, who examined Accused No.1 and issued the injury certificate (Exh. 36). Rajesh Hanmantu Pawar (PW 13) carried the muddemal articles to C.A. Office, Pune. Deepak Ghadge (PW 14) is police constable who also carried certain articles to CA Office, Pune. Shantappa Mallappa Kore (PW 15) is PSO, who recorded the complaint of Shaharabi on 3.10.1995 at Exh. 42 and Nagnath Gaikwad (PW 16) is the Investigating Officer in this case. As against this the accused no.2 examined one Anilkumar Ganeshlal Sahu (DW 1) who is assistant Station Master of Madha Railway Stn. and Hari Sopan Kumbhar who is a proprietor of Vandana Hotel as a D.W.No.2. 7. After considering the material on record, the learned Judge has held that in intervening night of 23.12.1995 and 24.12.1995 in between 7 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. the accused in furtherance of their common intention or knowingly caused the death of Shabarabai @ Shahabai and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and thereby both the accused have been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each failing which to suffer R.I. for one month. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. As there is no dispute, there is no difficulty in holding that the prosecution has proved that the death of Shabarabai was homicidal. 9. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted both the accused based on the circumstantial evidence. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. As there is no dispute, there is no difficulty in holding that the prosecution has proved that the death of Shabarabai was homicidal. 9. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted both the accused based on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that the circumstantial evidence must be of conclusive nature and it must establish a complete chain between the accused and the commission of the alleged offence. 10. In the present case, the prosecution has sought to rely upon the following circumstances with a view to connect the accused with the crime: (i) Motive; (ii) The deceased was last seen in the company of accused; (iii) Discovery of the weapon and clothes of the accused stained with blood; (iv) Injury found on the person of accused; (v) Feeble plea of alibi and (vi) the conduct of the accused. 11. Motive: The first husband of the deceased used to drink and assault her and; therefore she left him. She was constrained to take shelter in the house of her parents at Mohol. During this period the deceased developed an illicit relationship with accused no.2. The deceased since thereafter resided with accused no.2 as his wife at Mohol Railway Station. Baba Hasan (PW 9), is a second child out of their wedlock. The background of the complainant and his mother of doing business of selling liquor and; the deceased frequent quarrel with accused no.2 as he was suspecting her character, cannot be overlooked. PW 5- the complainant, in his evidence has stated that there was frequent quarrel between them as accused no.2 was suspecting the character of the deceased. A report about the assault on 3.10.1995 was filed by the deceased against accused no.2. PW 15-PC.Kore has proved the said report. PW 9-Baba, the son of the deceased, has further supported the prosecution case that there were frequent quarrels as his father (Accused no.2) used to suspect the character of (the deceased) his mother. PW 9 who at the relevant time was of 12 years, has narrated the incident of assault dated 3.10.1995 and further that since then the deceased used to reside in the house of her parents. PW 9 who at the relevant time was of 12 years, has narrated the incident of assault dated 3.10.1995 and further that since then the deceased used to reside in the house of her parents. PW 10-Padma, who is a neighbour of the deceased, has also supported on the point of harassment to the deceased, at the hands of accused no.2. She has also supported that accused no.2 used to suspect the character of the deceased. Another witness PW 11-Chandrakant, has also supported the prosecution case on this issue. Considering all these the learned Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that accused no.2 was all the while suspecting the character of his wife and has a grudge against her. Merely because on 21.12.1995 the deceased and appellant no.2 attended one marriage ceremony that itself cannot be the reason to accept the case of the defence that they were living happily and the matrimonial dispute was settled. After going through the evidence of these witnesses we are also satisfied that their relationship was quite strained as accused no.2 was suspecting her character and fidelity. In this background it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The omission in the evidence of PW 5 and PW 9 are not fatal to the prosecution case as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. In our view also the motive has been successfully established by the prosecution. 12. "Last seen together":-The findings given by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 19 and 20 about the "last seen together" which are reproduced below further supports the prosecution case on this issue. "19. (ii) Last Scene:- The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of deceased last seen in the company of the accused no.2. For the purpose of this circumstance, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of the complainant Vijay Anna Randive (PW-5) PW-9 Baba and PW-11 Chandrakant Dagadu Ashtul. PW-5 who is admittedly the real brother of deceased Shabera, his evidence is to the effect that two days before the death of Shahabai accused no.2-Hasan had been to his house. Accused no.2 told him that there was a marriage of his relative at Akluj and, therefore, he took his sister Shabera with him to Akluj. PW-5 who is admittedly the real brother of deceased Shabera, his evidence is to the effect that two days before the death of Shahabai accused no.2-Hasan had been to his house. Accused no.2 told him that there was a marriage of his relative at Akluj and, therefore, he took his sister Shabera with him to Akluj. On 23.12.1995, he saw accused no.2, his sister Shahabai and the mother of accused no.2 complainant asked his sister to accompany him to his house; but Shabera told him that she would return back in a short time from the house of accused persons and accordingly his sister Shabera went with accused no.2. He, further, disclosed that as per the assurance, Shabera did not return to home on 23.12.1995 within reasonable and, therefore, mother of Shabera sent one of their neighbour, namely, Chandrakant Dagadu Ashtul to the house of accused no.2 Hasan, He, further, disclosed that mother of accused no.2 told Chandrakant Dagadu Ashtul that both the accused and Shahabai left for Mohol and on the next day morning he heard rumours about the murder and he saw the dead body of his sister in the field near Railway Station, Mohol. This witness was cross-examined at length but no fruitful purpose is achieved to disbelieve the story given by him to the above effect. In short, the evidence of this PW-5 goes unchallenged on the material point that on 23.12.1995 deceased Shabera was seen in the accompany of accused no.2. 20. PW-9 Baba is the son of accused no.2. His evidence is to the effect that two days before the incident of death of his mother, his father took his mother to Akluj for attending the marriage of his relative. On the next day evening his parents returned home. His mother prepared a meal. All family members took the meal and after the meal was over, accused no.2 Sikandar went behind the house. He followed him. He noticed that accused no.1 was groping the pocket of his full pant. He asked accused no.1 What had happened and the accused no.1 told to him that he has came there for urination. Thereafter, accused no.1 Sikandar went on bicycle towards Mohol and after 5-10 minutes the father (accused No.2) took with him his mother on bicycle. He asked his father where he was going? His father told him that he would reach his mother at Mohol. Thereafter, accused no.1 Sikandar went on bicycle towards Mohol and after 5-10 minutes the father (accused No.2) took with him his mother on bicycle. He asked his father where he was going? His father told him that he would reach his mother at Mohol. On that day according to him neither his father nor mother and accused no.1 return to home and on the next day morning at about 7.00 a.m. his father came to home and he was not having his bicycle with him and this witness asked his father where he was in the night? There on his father kept mum and in short time, the accused no.2 left the home for attending the work at Madha. He, further, disclosed that at about 8.00 a.m. one Chandrakant Dagadu Ashtul came to his house and informed him that the dead body of his mother is lying in the field of one Mali." We have also gone through the evidence of PW 9, PW 11 and other material on record and we are satisfied that accused no.2 was last seen together with the deceased. 13. PW 11-Chandrakant as requested by the mother of the deceased, went to the house of accused no.2 to enquire about her. Accused no.2 was not at home. The mother of accused no.2 informed him that accused no.2 and the deceased left the house on bicycle towards Mohol. Chandrakant had informed to the mother of Shahabai accordingly. On the next day morning they found the dead body of Shahabai in the field situated near Mohol railway Station at about 7 p.m. In the cross-examination this witness could not be shaken on these basic aspects. The evidence of PW 9 and PW 11 supports the prosecution case that accused no.2 and deceased were last seen together on 23.10.1995. The reliance on Shera Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1271 in the facts and circumstances of the accused is of no assistance to the accused as in the present case there was no evidence of approver relied by the prosecution on the issue of "last seen together". 14. The reliance on Shera Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1271 in the facts and circumstances of the accused is of no assistance to the accused as in the present case there was no evidence of approver relied by the prosecution on the issue of "last seen together". 14. The submission that the evidence of PW 9-Baba Hasan who is an important witness of the prosecution needs to be accepted cautiously, as since the date of the incident he was in the custody of the complainant and, therefore, there was possibility of tutoring, by the family members of the complainant, is not acceptable. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that though the deceased was residing with her parents after the incident of assault dated 3.10.1995, Baba was all the while residing with his father. Baba must have noticed and faced matrimonial flickerings between his father and the deceased. Such child being a son of the deceased and/or of accused no.2 would not normally involve third person and to shield the real murderer. In the present case Baba has admitted in his cross-examination that he felt very sorry as soon as he came to know about the death of his mother and further expressed that the accused should be punished. In the cross-examination also he remained unshaken. There was no material to justify the submission of tutoring based on 1068 Arbind Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 1068 . The facts and circumstances are distinct and distinguishable. 15. Blood stained clothes, weapon & bicycles:- At the instance of accused no.1 the prosecution has recovered the weapons i.e. knife, cloths stained with blood. A bicycle was discovered at the instance of accused no.2. The discovery of knife has been proved by PW 6-Nandkumar. Merely because this witness is a Government servant the submission that possibility of influence by police officer cannot be the sufficient reason to discard this witness. There is no material to establish that this independent witness was in any way interested in I.O. The Inquiry Officer has supported the case of PW 6 as referred above in all respects. 16. A bicycle was recovered at the instance of accused no.2 after recording his statement. Another bicycle of Hercules make having blood stains on the rod was also recovered. Both the bicycles with the blood stained rubber grips (Article 21) were seized under the panchanama. 16. A bicycle was recovered at the instance of accused no.2 after recording his statement. Another bicycle of Hercules make having blood stains on the rod was also recovered. Both the bicycles with the blood stained rubber grips (Article 21) were seized under the panchanama. PW 16-PSI Gaikwad has supported the above prosecution case in all respects. The panch witness who was retired Government servant just cannot be overlooked merely because the panchas from the locality were not selected by the I.O. 17. After going through the reasoning as well as the record, we find that the concerned police officer has followed the required procedure to send the articles and blood samples to Chemical Analyser for analysis. The evidence of PW 13 remained intact on the point that the property clerk handed over to him a sealed packet in Crime No.285/1995. Same was the case in respect of other articles. The presumption unless rebutted as contemplated under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the official acts have been regularly performed. Therefore the prosecution has proved the fact of recovery of the weapons, clothes, bicycles with rubber grips, having blood stains. The C.A. report, as referred above, is difficult to discard only on the ground that no evidence to support was brought on record that articles were seized and the same were sent to C.A. for analysis. PW 13-Police Constable Rajesh stated that on 4.1.1996 he was attached to Mohol Police Station and on that day property clerk of the Mohol Police Station handed over to him two sealed envelopes to carry it to C.A., Pune along with forwarding letters and as per direction on 5.1.1996 he handed over the said envelopes and obtained the due acknowledgement. There is further evidence of panch witness that I.O. pasted slips of their names on the property recovered and it was duly sealed and handed over to the Muddemal property clerk under section 114 of the Evidence Act. In view of this, there is no reason to interfere with the finding that the prosecution has established the fact of recovery of the weapon viz. blood stained knife and the clothes. The submission that prosecution had planted blood on clothes of the accused has no force. In view of this, there is no reason to interfere with the finding that the prosecution has established the fact of recovery of the weapon viz. blood stained knife and the clothes. The submission that prosecution had planted blood on clothes of the accused has no force. There was no such defence raised at any time by the accused as was done in Mohd.Ramzani v. State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 1341 , as relied by the learned counsel for the accused. 18. Injuries of Accused no.one:- Accused no.1 was arrested on 24.12.1995, by PW 16-Nagnath (PSI attached to Mohol Police Station) having injuries on his right palm. Accused no.1 as reported by PW 12-Dr.Zadbuke had 5 injuries on the right palm. Those injuries as opined by the Medical Officer, would be possible if the person handles the weapon like article 16 (knife). Accused no.1 in the course of his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure denied the injuries on his right hand palm. However, in the written statement he tried to establish that he fell on the broken glass pieces and thereby received the injuries. The suggestion was in the course of examination to the Medical Officer that such injuries are possible if a person handles tin-sheets. This further supports the prosecution case that accused no.1 was not clear and made contradictory statements. The conclusion therefore as arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution established the fact that accused no.1 received 5 injuries on his right palm and the said injuries are possible on account of the handling of article 16 (knife) need to be accepted. The reliance on Jagta v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 1545 is also no assistance to the accused as in that case the defence was raised by the accused that those injuries were caused to him by the police. In the present case there is material to connect the role of accused and, therefore, the inconsistent explanation given about the injury on the person itself an additional factor which supports the prosecution case as a missing link. 19. Alibi of Accused no.two:- Accused no.2 has set up the basic plea of alibi. The principle of alibi has been enumerated in various cases by the Apex Court. Accused failed to discharge his burden. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the same being unconvincing. 20. 19. Alibi of Accused no.two:- Accused no.2 has set up the basic plea of alibi. The principle of alibi has been enumerated in various cases by the Apex Court. Accused failed to discharge his burden. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the same being unconvincing. 20. As per the prosecution the incident of murder took on the intervening night of 23/24-12-1995 between 7 p.m. to 7.45 a.m. Accused no.2 for the purpose of proving his plea of alibi has examined two defence witnesses being DW 1-Assistant Station Master (ASM) and DW 2- a proprietor of hotel. DW 1 admitted that accused no.2 was marked as absent on 24.12.1995 between 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. He was also marked absent on 23.12.1995. The ASM diary and the muster roll as placed on record show that accused no.2 resumed his duty on 24.12.1995 at 4 a.m. and was relieved from duty at about 12 noon. Therefore except this fact there is nothing to show that the accused attended the office of ASM on 23.12.1995 at 9 p.m. There was no plausible explanation given by the ASM. He remembered that on 21.12.1995 accused no.2 met him at 9 p.m. for the purpose of enquiry about the availability of relieving duty. Another defence witness stated that on 23.12.1995 at about 1.30 p.m. accused no.2 came to his hotel but as the rice plate was not available he served "Shevchivda & Bhaji" to accused no.2. He further stated that on the same day at about 6 p.m. he saw accused at Railway platform while he was serving tea to the passengers. At that time accused no.2 placed an order that he would like to take rice plate in the evening and accordingly at 7.30 p.m. accused no.2 took rice plate at his hotel and the total bill of Rs.18/- was credited in the account of accused no.2. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he is court bird. He further admitted that there is a separate railway canteen and the said canteen provides material to the railway workers on a subsidy. He further admitted that on 24.12.1995 he came to know that accused no.2 involved in a murder case and inspite of that he did not disclose to the police that accused no.2 had been to his canteen on 23.12.1995. He further admitted that on 24.12.1995 he came to know that accused no.2 involved in a murder case and inspite of that he did not disclose to the police that accused no.2 had been to his canteen on 23.12.1995. He admitted further that he had been to the Court with the accused on 13.1.1997 and he had talked with accused no.2. We are also of the view that the evidence of DW no.2 does not inspire any confidence. The evidence appears to be artificial and concocted. The presence of DW 2 at the Railway platform to serve food to other passengers is also doubtful. Accused no.2 being a porter, it is expected and most natural that he would like to have a subsidy rate food rather than the food from the outside hotel. There is material on the record that unauthorised person cannot sell tea and refreshment on Railway platform. The rough account took place on record by DW 2 was not maintained regularly and properly, also it cannot be accepted. Inconsistent defence as taken by accused no.1 therefore further supports the prosecution case. The defence as raised by accused and specially plea of alibi and if it failed and/or unable to prove the same, in our opinion that is also a positive circumstance which supports the prosecution case. The submission that the defence witness should not be discarded, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not acceptable. Having failed to prove the defence as raised, the prosecution case, in such cases, stand further proved. It is an accepted principle that prosecution must prove the case but in a case whether the accused raises contradictory or inconsistent defences and failed to discharge its burden to support the positive averments in reference to defence, this is also one of the link which is a material circumstance to connect the accused with the crime, though certainly not the main circumstances. On reappreciating the evidence of defence witness, we are not accepting the plea of alibi as raised by accused no.1. Therefore, Kaur Sain v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 329 as relied, is of no help to the accused. We also find that these defence witnesses are unreliable. 21. On reappreciating the evidence of defence witness, we are not accepting the plea of alibi as raised by accused no.1. Therefore, Kaur Sain v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 329 as relied, is of no help to the accused. We also find that these defence witnesses are unreliable. 21. Even assuming for the moment that accused no.2 had gone to Railway Station Madha on 23.12.1995 at 9 p.m. he would have returned on the evening at the place of incident. DW 1 has stated that running time of express Railway train from Madha to Mohol is 30 to 35 minutes. There is also a facility of regular buses from Madha to Mohol. In any case one can reach from Madha to Mohol within a span of one hour. Therefore, as per the prosecution, the incident of murder took place on the intervening night of 23.12.1995 between 7 p.m. to 7.45 a.m. The plea of alibi as raised by accused is difficult to accept. It is highly artificial, unbelievable and does not deserve credibility. 22. The conduct of Accused no.2:-The conduct of accused no.2 is also material. The body of the deceased was detected at about 6 p.m. on 24.12.1995. Accused no.2 was relieved from duty as contended on 24.12.1995 at 12 noon. All villagers of Mohol came to know about the death of deceased. Considering the distance of Madha Railway Station from Mohol, the explanation that he came to know about the death of his wife at about 6 p.m. is quite unnatural. Had the deceased been murdered by any stranger, accused no.2 could have or should have immediately rushed to the spot of incident. There was neither complaint lodged by accused no.2 nor rushed to the police station. On 25.12.1995 he was arrested by the police. 23. Accused No.1:- Accused no.1 had not raised the plea of alibi. The case of accused no.2 of last seen together was also not applicable. The question remains whether accused no.1 shared the common intention. Whether the circumstances which are against accused no.2 can be used or extended against accused no.1. There is no material which supports the prosecution case on the point of motive. The case of accused no.2 of last seen together was also not applicable. The question remains whether accused no.1 shared the common intention. Whether the circumstances which are against accused no.2 can be used or extended against accused no.1. There is no material which supports the prosecution case on the point of motive. PW 9 has stated that his uncle accused no.1 used to come to the house of accused no.2 that on 23.12.1995 accused no.1 took meal and thereafter went away, thereafter followed by Accused no.2 along with the deceased within 5 to 10 minutes, on the bicycle. Thereafter neither accused no.2 nor accused no.1 was seen from 23.12.1995 to 24.12.1995. Accused no.1 was seen by PW 5 and PW 9. The incriminating article i.e. knife and clothes stained with blood were recovered at the instance of accused no.1. The explanation given by accused no.1 about 5 injuries on his right palm as discussed above and as recorded is contradictory and inconsistent. Accused no.2 unable to give proper explanation as to how his clothes were blood stained. Accused no.2 has taken contradictory and inconsistent stand even in the written statement. The Medical Officer-PW 12 has opined that the aforesaid injuries would be possible if the person handles the weapon like article 16 (knife). The bicycle used by accused no.1-Sikandar was seized with blood stained rubber grips. Those grips were removed and sealed in the presence of PW 4 (Article 21), an unshaken panch witness for sending it to C.A. PW 14 has stated that 13 sealed envelopes including covering letter (Exh.14) were handed over to C.A., Pune. PW 9 has identified the clothes of accused no.2 (Articles 19 & 20) and also of cousin brother, accused no.1 (Articles 17 & 18) which were worn on the day when they left the house of accused no.2 with the deceased. 24. The knife was recovered at the instance of accused no.1. As per the post-mortem report except injury no.18 all the external injuries found on the person of Shahabai were caused by hard and sharp cutting instrument. Accused no.1 in the Police Station made a statement that he is ready and willing to show the blood stained knife and clothes as stated by PW 6-Nandkumar, a panch witness. The blood stained knife and clothes were recovered and seized under panchanama (Ex.25). The fact of recovery is supported by I.O. (PW 16). Accused no.1 in the Police Station made a statement that he is ready and willing to show the blood stained knife and clothes as stated by PW 6-Nandkumar, a panch witness. The blood stained knife and clothes were recovered and seized under panchanama (Ex.25). The fact of recovery is supported by I.O. (PW 16). 25. The C.A. report (Exh.58) further shows that clothes of Sikandar (accused no.1) having blood stains of "A" group. His blood group is also "A". The prosecution witness stated that the clothes which were seized were of accused persons. Accused no.1 unable to explain how his clothes having blood stains were found to be of "A" group. The blood group of the deceased was "O" group. The knife also stained with human blood having "O" group. The clothes namely, full pant, open shirt, manila which were recovered at the instance of accused no.1 were having blood stains of "O" group. The clothes of accused no.2 were also found as of "O" group. The blood group of accused no.2 was also of "O" group. Accused no.2 was also unable to give proper explanation how his clothes stained with blood group of "O". 26. Considering all the above circumstances, we confirm the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused committed the murder of the deceased Shabera and accordingly both the accused have been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The bail bonds of both the accused shall stand cancelled.