JUDGMENT S.P. KUKDAY, J.:- Appellant and six others were tried for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the ("IPC"). In addition, appellant was tried for having committed offence punishable under section 201 of the IPC. By the order dated 22nd March, 2000, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, acquitted accused nos.2 to 7 of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC. He also acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under section 201 of the IPC, but found that the appellant has committed murder of deceased Sahebrao Tekale of village Dabhad. He, thus, convicted the appellant of the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. This order of conviction and sentence is impugned in the present appeal. 2. Kisanrao (PW-16), Venkat (PW12), Kantrao and Sahebrao (since deceased) are sons and kalawati and Jijabai are daughters of Anjanabai Bapurao Tekale (PW -13). Sumanbai (PW-14) is widow of Sahebrao. Kalawati is married to Balwantrao Jethanrao Karhale (PW15) of Girgao, which is at a distance of 15 kilometers from Dabhad. Dashrath Raghunath Dadajwar (accused no.4), Ramji (accused no.5) and Balaji (accused no.6) are brothers, Venkati (accused no.7) is son of accused no.5 and Ramchandra Kisanrao Dabhadkar (accused no.3) is nephew of accused nos.4, 5 and 6. PW-16 is serving as Post Master at village Dabhad, Taluqa & District Nanded. Accused No.7 was serving in the Post Office at Dabhad as a runner. Some of the beneficiaries under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana, made complaints against accused no.7, that he misappropriated amount of money orders to be paid to them under this Scheme. Their cause was taken up by the deceased who was worker of Shetkari Sanghatna. As a result, report regarding misappropriation was forwarded to higher authorities by PW-16. On the basis of this report, accused no.7 was removed from service. He, therefore, nurtured grudge against the deceased. In addition, there was a dispute between family of accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 and the family of the deceased regarding field Block No.280 having area of 5-H, 7-R. valued at rupees five crores, which is the property of Dattatraya Sansthan Trust. He, therefore, nurtured grudge against the deceased. In addition, there was a dispute between family of accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 and the family of the deceased regarding field Block No.280 having area of 5-H, 7-R. valued at rupees five crores, which is the property of Dattatraya Sansthan Trust. Founder of the Trust, Mahant Uttam Giri died on 22.10.1987; accused no.3 allegedly prepared a forged agreement of sale of the said land with an intention to usurp the property. Members of the family of the deceased were claiming that the said property was gifted to the Trust by their ancestor and should revert to them as the founder had no successor. 3. On 9th March, 1989, accused no.7 assaulted the deceased in front of Lord Maruti Temple at about 2.00 p.m. and threatened to take revenge as he was dismissed from service on account of the complaint made by the deceased. On the next day, accused nos.3 to 6 went to the house of the deceased and warned members of his family that they would be taking revenge by committing murder of the deceased. On 19th March, 1989, PW15 visited house of the deceased at about 4.30 p.m. While he was returning to Girgao, deceased met him at Bhokar bifurcation. Appellant was also there. All three of them had mutton and liquor at the hotel of Sukhpalsingh Mann (PW-10). During the meals, it was decided that PW-15 should fill three liters of petrol and the appellant should reach him to Girgao in his rickshaw. After it was decided that the journey is to be by the rickshaw, the deceased insisted that he would accompany his brother-in-law up to Girgao. As the deceased was not properly dressed, all of them went to Dabhad. After the deceased changed his clothes, they started for Girgao. On their way, they stopped at the Inn of Ambadas Dharamji Yelgantwar (PW-9), at Malegaon. All of them had omelet, consumed liquor and them went to Girgao. PW -15 persuaded the deceased and the appellant to stay over night at his house but they did not accede to his persuasions and started back for Dabhad at about 10.00 pm. On the next day, when PW -15 visited house of the deceased at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m., he was informed that the deceased has not returned. PW -15 persuaded the deceased and the appellant to stay over night at his house but they did not accede to his persuasions and started back for Dabhad at about 10.00 pm. On the next day, when PW -15 visited house of the deceased at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m., he was informed that the deceased has not returned. PW-15 told his in-laws that the deceased had returned to Dabhad on the earlier night by auto-rickshaw of the appellant. 4. On 20th March, 1989 at about 8.00 a.m., Narayan Gangaram Navale who is Police Patil of village Mendhala, spotted dead body of the deceased in a pit, which is to the north of the Malegaon road and relayed the information to Ardhapur Police. On the basis of this information (Exh.48), ASI Kisan Ramchandra Limbekar (PW-5), registered A.D. No.2/1989. During the course of enquiry, he held Inquest on the dead body (Exh.58), drew spot Panchnama (Exh.59) and sent the dead body for post-mortem. At the Primary Heath Centre, Ardhapur, Dr. Pawade, performed post-mortem. He issued advance death certificate (Exh.53) and prepared post-,mortem report (Exh.52). Clothes of the deceased were soiled with blood; these clothes were attached under seizure memo (Exh.55). As the death was homicidal, PW-5 lodged report (Exh.61), registered an offence punishable under section 302 of IPC against an unknown person and handed over the investigation to PSI Varade (PW-19). 5. The appellant had abandoned autorickshaw in front of Bhokar Bus Stand. Sakharam Laxman Shinde (PW-11) is owner of this vehicle bearing registration No.MCB/ 2250. As he is physically handicapped he had given the vehicle to the appellant far plying on the rent of Rs.40/- per day. On receiving information that the vehicle is abandoned at the Bus Stand with broken wind screen, PW-11 went there, brought the vehicle to his house and washed it with water. However, a blood spat remained on the yellow portion of the vehicle. Scrapings from this spat were collected when the vehicle was attached by the Investigating Officer, under seizure memo. (Ex-n.64), in presence of Gulam Dastgir (PW6) on 22nd March, 1989. On 25th March, 1989 the appellant came to he arrested. Shirt and pal'lt on his persan were sailed with blood. These clothes were attached under seizure memo (Exh.70) in presence of Abdul Gaffar (PW-8.). (Ex-n.64), in presence of Gulam Dastgir (PW6) on 22nd March, 1989. On 25th March, 1989 the appellant came to he arrested. Shirt and pal'lt on his persan were sailed with blood. These clothes were attached under seizure memo (Exh.70) in presence of Abdul Gaffar (PW-8.). On 29th March, 1989, appellant made confessional statement and produced axe concealed near the heap of stones in the field of his friend Shankar Chavan (accused Na.2). The weapon was attached under seizure memo. (Exh.66). After producing the weapon, the appellant confessed that he had concealed the weapon under the driver's seat af the rickshaw and gave a demonstration. Panchnama (Exh.68) of this proceeding was prepared. On 3rd March, 1989, appellant again made a confessional statement and painted out a pit by the side of Maslegaon-Girgao road, where the offence was committed. Memorandum of the confessional statement and discovery Panchnama (Exhs.148 and 149) of this proceeding were prepared by the Investigating Officer. Articles attached during the investigation were sent to the Forensic Laboratory. C.A. reports (Exhs.155 and 156) disclosed that clothes of the deceased and the appellant were stained with human blood. Blood of the appellant is of 'A' group and that there was no. blood on the axe. 6. On 27th March, 1989, PW-12 filed an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Nanded, far adding accused nas.3 to 7 as the accused. However, during further investigation, no. evidence against them could be collected. Thus, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Nanded, against the appellant and his friend Shankar Thaw Chavan. Dissatisfied with this course ado pled by the Investigating Officer on the strength of information given by Sakharam Sambhaji Tekale (PW -18) and Digamber Kalyankar (since deceased), PW -12 filed complaint Case No.1l3/1990 against appellant and accused nos.3 to 7 for offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 302 r/w.149 of the IPC. Both these cases were committed to the Court of Sessions, Nanded and were registered as Sessions Case No.146/1989 and Sessions Case No.48/1991. These two Sessions cases were amalgamated and tried together. At the trial, all the accused adopted defence of total denial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. PWs-12, 13, 14 and 16 are relatives of the deceased and have narrated the entire prosecution version regarding the enmity with accused nos. These two Sessions cases were amalgamated and tried together. At the trial, all the accused adopted defence of total denial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. PWs-12, 13, 14 and 16 are relatives of the deceased and have narrated the entire prosecution version regarding the enmity with accused nos. 3 to 7, assault on the deceased by accused no.7 on 9th March, 1989 near Lord Maruti Temple of the village and the warning given to them by accused nos.3 to 6 of 10th March. 1989 that they would be taking revenge on the deceased. 8. PW-18 has his house in front of the house of accused no.4. He stated that in the evening appellant had given information to accused nos. 3 to 7 that he would be returning with the deceased from Girgao in his rickshaw. On that night, he was sleeping in front of his house with neighbor Digambar Kalyankar. Both of them saw accused nos. 3 to 7 leaving their house with weapons and on their return, heard their conversation about taking the revenge. PW-17 speaks of the warning given by accused nos. 3 to 6 that they would be taking revenge on the deceased. 9. PW-2 Dr. Pawade performed autopsy. He found following six external injuries on the dead body: “1) Contused lacerated wound over the right elbow inner side 3” x 2” x skin deep. 2) Abrasion on the right leg medial side at calf muscle 2" x 2" 3) Contused lacerated wound over the right ear lobule tea red up to gragus 2" x skin deep. 4) Diffused contusion Over the right supra and infra-mammary region up to right shoulder swelling present. 5) Diffused contusion over the right shoulder joint and supra scapular region. 6) Abrasion Over right elbow on the outer side 2" skin deep." In addition, he noticed fracture of right clavicle, fracture of right scapula at the neck at supra scapular region, bone deep incised wound on right parietal region 3" x 2" resulting in rupture of the covering of the brain and tearing of the brain matter at the site of the fracture; fracture of all thoracic ribs except last rib, four to five inches away from the sternum, resulting in rupturing pleura, accumulation of blood in pleural cavity and laceration of the liver. He further found that both the chambers of the heart were empty and that the stomach contained undigested food smelling of alcohol. The autopsy surgeon prepared post-mortem report (Exh.52) opining that the death is caused on account of the hemorrhagic shock due to fracture of the parietal bone causing subdural hemorrhage, fracture of the thoracic ribs, fracture of right clavicle and scapular bone causing haemorrhage in the axilla and due to rupture of axillary vessels. 10. Oil appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Judge found that the deceased died a homicidal death. He further found that the evidence of PW-18 regarding participation of accused nos.3 to 7 is unreliable. He further found that there was no evidence to establish complicity of accused no.2 and causing disappearance of the evidence of the crime by the appellant. However, the circumstances of the last seen together, finding of human blood on the clothes of the appellant and in the scrapings on the vehicle, ascendance of the appellant, discovery of the weapon and the scene of the occurrence, enumerated in para 16 of the judgment, proved guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In conformity of these findings, the trial Judge acquitted accused nos.2 to 7 and convicted the appellant of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated earlier. 11. The appellant sought legal aid when he was produced from the Prison. In response to the prayer of the appellant Adv. A.T.A.K. Shaikh is appointed as amicus curiae. 12. In support of the appeal, learned amicus curiae, would argue that the circumstances established by the prosecution do not exclude possibility of the innocence of the appellant. Admittedly, the deceased was drunk and the injuries suffered by him can be sustained in an accident. In addition, the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the appellant had no motive to commit murder of the deceased. The theory of last seen together or the abscondence of the appellant, have also not been established by the prosecution. In support of these contentions, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1130 (Bhausaheb Maruti Kalane Vs. State of Maharashtra) and 2001 ALL MR 1798 (Ramesh Ramchandra Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra). The theory of last seen together or the abscondence of the appellant, have also not been established by the prosecution. In support of these contentions, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1130 (Bhausaheb Maruti Kalane Vs. State of Maharashtra) and 2001 ALL MR 1798 (Ramesh Ramchandra Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra). Learned amicus curiae would further argue that in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, conclusion reached by the trial Judge that the circumstances enumerated in para 16 of the judgment are sufficient to prove complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime, is unsustainable. 13. In reply, learned APP Shri. K.B. Choudhary has referred to the evidence of PWs.9, 10, 11 and 15 to point out that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased prior to the commission of the offence and was absconding from 20th till 25th March, 1989. It is contended that in addition; the fact that human blood was found on the clothes appellant was wearing at the time of arrest, coupled with the absence of an explanation, would clinch the issue. Referring to the circumstances established by the prosecution, learned APP would argue that findings recorded by the trial Judge are based on proper appreciation of the evidence, therefore, interference with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge is not warranted. 14. We have carefully scrutinized the record and proceeding of the case with the assistance of learned amicus curiae and learned APP Shri. Choudhary for the State. The appellant has tried for the commission of offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC, along with six accused. All other accused are acquitted of the charge by the trial Judge for the lack of cogent and credible evidence to establish their complicity in the commission of offence. The appellant is also acquitted of the offence of causing disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the crime. The State has chosen not no controvert these findings recorded by the Trial Judge. This order of acquittal has, thus, attained finality. 15. Undisputedly, the present prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The appellant is also acquitted of the offence of causing disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the crime. The State has chosen not no controvert these findings recorded by the Trial Judge. This order of acquittal has, thus, attained finality. 15. Undisputedly, the present prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case entirely based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to (i) conclusively establish the circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused; (ii) the chain of circumstances must be complete and; (iii) the circumstances so established, should not only substantiate the hypothesis of guilt of the accused but must be incompatible with his innocence. 16. In the present case, the prosecution mainly relies on five circumstances, viz. (i) that the deceased died a homicidal death; (ii) the accused was last seen together with the deceased; (iii) human blood was detected on the shirt and pant found on the person of the accused at the time of his arrest; (iv) human blood was detected on the auto-rickshaw driven by the appellant in which the deceased was traveling on the fateful night of the occurrence, and; (v) abscondence of the appellant from 20th till 25th March, 1989. 17. Commenting on the first circumstance, learned amicus curiae argued that the deceased was intoxicated and injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused in vehicular accident. This contention is based on the admission of the Medical Officer that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report (Exh.52) can be caused if a drunkard is involved in a vehicular accident. In the present case, the autopsy surgeon has not mentioned that all the external injuries in column No.17 but has chosen to mention the injuries separately in different column meant for different organs of the body. The admission given is obviously in respect of the injuries mentioned in column no.17 as is clear from the explanation which follows this admission that, apart from the injuries noted in this column, there should be other injuries typically caused in the vehicular accident. It is not necessary to dilate on this aspect in view of the fact that the deceased had sustained bone deep incised wound on the right parietal region of the size of 3" x 2" which had resulted in rupture of meanings which was 2" in length and is one of the factors responsible for causing the death. It is not necessary to dilate on this aspect in view of the fact that the deceased had sustained bone deep incised wound on the right parietal region of the size of 3" x 2" which had resulted in rupture of meanings which was 2" in length and is one of the factors responsible for causing the death. The nature of the injuries catalogued in various columns of the postmortem report (Exh.52), clearly show that the deceased died a homicidal death. In addition, it has been brought on record that though the body was found on the road, the incident had taken place in a pit by the roadside and not on the road. In view of these facts, we are not inclined to sustain the contention that possibility of an accidental death is not ruled out by the prosecution. 18. It is next contented by learned amicus curiae that evidence of PW -15 that he saw the appellant in the company of the deceased on the night of the incident, is not reliable. Last seen theory is based on the principle that if the accused is shown to be the last person seen in the company of the deceased, then the accused who has last seen in the company of the deceased, has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. Once it is established that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased, soon before the deceased was found to be missing, the burden of giving an explanation as to when and where they parted company shifts on the accused in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as these facts are within the special knowledge of the accused. 19. In the present case, PW-15 stated that on the day of the incident, he himself, the deceased and the appellant first had mutton and consumed liquor at the hotel at Bhokar bifurcation at 4.30 p.m. After taking meals, they went back to village Dabhad as the deceased was to change his clothes. On their way to Girgao, they again stopped at Suvama Hotel at Malegaon, where the deceased and the appellant had omelets and consumed liquor at about 7.30 p.m. From there, all of them then went to Girgao. On their way to Girgao, they again stopped at Suvama Hotel at Malegaon, where the deceased and the appellant had omelets and consumed liquor at about 7.30 p.m. From there, all of them then went to Girgao. The deceased and the appellant did not agree to his suggestion that they should stay at his house for the night and started back for village Dabhad. This evidence of PW -15 is fully corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. PW-11 is the owner of the auto-rickshaw. He states that the vehicle was given on hire to the appellant. On the day of occurrence, he found that the vehicle was abandoned in front of Bhokar Bus Stand. Later on the vehicle was attached by the Investigating Officer. PW-10 who is owner of the hotel at Bhokar bifurcation, knew the deceased. He states that on 19th, deceased had been to his hotel with two persons at about 4.30 p.m. All the three had mutton at his hotel. PW-9 is the owner of roadside Survarna Mutton Inn at Malegaon. He states that PW -15 had come to his Inn at about 8.30 p.m. with two persons. Waiter Ganesh served them omelette. All of them consumed liquor and left his hotel for Girgao at about 9.00 p.m. Having regard to the fact that a murder of his customer had taken place at short distance from hotel, the evidence of PW-9 can not be disbelieved because he could not recall visit of other customers. PW.1 who is Police Patil of village Mendla Khurd, found the dead body of the deceased, to the north of the road near the bridge at about 8 O'clock in the morning and reported the occurrence to Ardhapur Police. Medical evidence on record shows that there was undigested food in the stomach of the deceased suggesting that the death took place within few hours of the last meal. The evidence of independent witnesses and the medical evidence thus lend credence to the evidence of PW-15 and establish that the appellant was the last person seen with the deceased soon before his death. As the fact that the appellant was the person last seen with the deceased is proved, the onus of giving an explanation as to when and how they parted company shifts on the appellant. The appellant has failed to discharge this onus. As the fact that the appellant was the person last seen with the deceased is proved, the onus of giving an explanation as to when and how they parted company shifts on the appellant. The appellant has failed to discharge this onus. The circumstance of appellant having last seen with the deceased soon before his death does indicate his complicity in the commission of the murder of the deceased. The hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant is further bolstered by the fact that human blood was found in the scrapings of the auto-rickshaw driven by the appellant on the fateful night and on the garments which were on the person of the deceased at the time of his arrest. Instead of giving any explanation regarding his arrest, five days after the incident on 25th, and finding of human blood on his clothes, the appellant merely denied the factum of his arrest and seizure of blood stained clothes when these facts were put to him during the course of his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The circumstances discussed earlier, not only form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant, but are inconsistent with his innocence. 20. Learned amicus curiae has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Bhausaheb Maruti Kalarie and others reported in 2006 ALL MR 1130 in support of the proposition that the conviction can not be founded on the theory of last seen together alone. There can be no dispute regarding the dictum. In that case, benefit of doubt was given to the accused because this Court found that the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances establishing complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. This Court, however, has acknowledged that if there is cogent evidence to satisfactorily establish chain of incriminating circumstances, conviction can be founded on the theory of last seen together. In the present case, apart from the evidence that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased, other incriminating circumstances are established by the prosecution. In this view of the matter, decision of this court in the matter of Bhausaheb Maruti kalane (supra) does not substantiate contention advanced by learned amicus curiae. 21. In the present case, apart from the evidence that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased, other incriminating circumstances are established by the prosecution. In this view of the matter, decision of this court in the matter of Bhausaheb Maruti kalane (supra) does not substantiate contention advanced by learned amicus curiae. 21. It is next argued that the chain of circumstances can not said to be complete, as admittedly the appellant had no motive to commit murder of the deceased. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision of this court in the matter of Ramesh Ramchandra Bawiskar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2001 ALL MR 1798). In our considered opinion this contention is totally misconceived as the decision on which reliance is placed, supports the dictum that absence of the evidence of motive does lot necessarily affect the prosecution case. In the present case ostensibly, the appellant had no motive to cause death of the deceased. However, in a case where the evidence is strong, cogent and convincing, absence of motive becomes inconsequential. In this view of the matter, in the face of the evidence conclusively establishing complete chain of the circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellant, we can not persuade ourselves to accede to the contention that absence of motive entitles the appellant to a benefit of doubt. 22. On pragmatic assessment of the evidence on record, we do not find any infirmity with the finding of the trial Court that the appellant is guilty of committing murder of the deceased. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 23. Before parting with the appeal, we appreciate assistance rendered by learned amicus curiae Advocate A.T.A.K. Shaikh and quantify the honorarium to be paid to him at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) Appeal dismissed.