Judgement B. P. RAY, J. :- Both the appeals having arisen from out of the judgment and order dated 23-7-1990 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in ST. Case No. 46 of 1990, they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant stood trial for the offence u/Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') for committing murder of one Sarat 'Chandra Bhoi and causing disappearance of evidence. 3. The trial Court while acquitting the accused-appellant of the charge u/S. 302, IPC convicted him u/S. 304(11) and Section 201, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and two years respectively. The appellant assailing his conviction u/S. 304(11) and Section 201, IPC has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The State impugning the order of acquittal of the charge u/S. 302, IPC has filed the Govt. Appeal. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25-5-1989 night at about 9 p.m. the accused-Akshya Kumar Mohanty went to the house of his friend Sarat Chandra Bhoi (deceased) and requested him to accompany him to a place. The accused assured the family members of the deceased that he will return back home within 5 minutes. But the family members of the deceased including his wife-Ani Bhoi (P.W. 1) asked Sarat not to go with the accused-Akshya, as there was possibility of rain and it would not be safe to go out at that time. But Sarat Chandra Bhoi left his home with the accused and did not return home on that night or in the next morning. Thereafter his family members became worried and searched for the deceased Sarat Bhoi and the accused. Some villagers of the deceased also helped in searching the deceased and the accused. As no information was available about the deceased and accused, the wife (P.W. 1) lodged a report on 27-5-1989 morning at Naugaon Police Station complaining against the accused and non-returning of her husband after he left the house with the accused on 25-5-1989 night. The Officer-in-charge of Naugaon Police Station took up investigation and arrested the accused on 27-5-1989 in the jungle situated at a little distance of an abandoned house of one Pahali Mohanty and thereafter the investigation was set into motion. 5. The Officer-in-charge of Naugaon Police Station took up investigation and arrested the accused on 27-5-1989 in the jungle situated at a little distance of an abandoned house of one Pahali Mohanty and thereafter the investigation was set into motion. 5. During investigation, according to the statement given by the accused, police found the dead body of the deceased inside a gunny bag from a well situated at a distance of 100 meters away from the abandoned house of Pahali Mohanty held inquest over the same and sent the dead body of Sarat Bhoi for post-mortem. Police also seized the weapon of offence which was concealed by the accused in the thatched roof of an abandoned house. Post-mortem examination was held by the doctors of Sub-divisional Hospital, Jagatsinghpur who found one lacerated injury on the occipital region of the head of deceased. The doctor also found some fractures on the bones of the deceased. The weapon of offence and other materials were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On receipt of forensic report and completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted u/Ss. 302, and 201, IPC. 6. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and produced several documents, while the accused did not examine any witness nor produced any document in his defence. The accused denied to have any knowledge about the incident of murder of Sarat Chandra Bhoi and took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. It is evident from the post-mortem report Ext. 20 and the deposition of P.W. 5 that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage following the injury to the brain which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has been further found that the injury was ante-mortem in nature. Thus it can be held that the deceased met a homicidal death. 8. Admittedly, there is no witness to the occurrence. The prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charges prosecution has relied upon two circumstances viz. (i) last seen and (ii) leading to discovery. As regards last seen is concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1, the wife, P.W. 2 the sister, P.W. 3 the brother, P.W. 4 the brother-in-law and P.W. 8 a cousin of the deceased. (i) last seen and (ii) leading to discovery. As regards last seen is concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1, the wife, P.W. 2 the sister, P.W. 3 the brother, P.W. 4 the brother-in-law and P.W. 8 a cousin of the deceased. They were all inmates of the house. All of them have unequivocally deposed that in the night of the alleged occurrence at about 9 p.m. the accused came to their house and called deceased. Both of them had some talk thereafter the deceased went along with the accused. The deceased did not return to house in the night. In the morning also when the deceased did not come all of them searched for him but could not find. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 it appears that the deceased was found last in the company of the accused and none has seen the deceased thereafter. In order to hold this circumstance incriminating, the time of death is relevant. If the death has occurred proximate to the last seen of the deceased with some body's company the same may be treated as an incriminating circumstance tending to the guilt of the accused. If the last seen and the death are far apart in time, then the circumstance would not be of any relevance unless it is proved that allthrough the deceased was with the accused. Post-mortem and the evidence of the doctor, who conducted autopsy are silent about the probable time of death. From the evidence of P.W. 6 it appears that due to decomposition of the dead body, the brain matter had been washed away from the skull. 9. If all the circumstances are considered from this perspective, it can safely be deduced that the death of the deceased must have taken place 2/3 days prior to the date of post-mortem which goes back to the night of 25-5-1989. None has seen the deceased in the morning of 26-5-1989 or thereafter. Hence, it can reasonably be concluded that the deceased was seen last in the company of the accused prior to his death. 10. The next circumstance which needs consideration is the leading to discovery of the alleged weapon of offence and the dead body of the deceased. None has seen the deceased in the morning of 26-5-1989 or thereafter. Hence, it can reasonably be concluded that the deceased was seen last in the company of the accused prior to his death. 10. The next circumstance which needs consideration is the leading to discovery of the alleged weapon of offence and the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 10 has deposed that in course of his investigation on 28-5-1989 he arrested the accused and while the accused was in custody he disclosed the fact of concealment of weapon of offence i.e. the crow bar and the dead body and by so saying he led to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the crow bar from the "Bhadi" of the abandoned house of Bibhuti Bhusan Mohanty. The house was situated at an isolated place. It was not in use nor accessible to public. Therefore, giving recovery of the crow bar from the said place certainly is an incriminating circumstance against the accused. Further, from the chemical examination, it is proved that the crow bar was stained with blood. Added to it, the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem has opined that the injury found on the person of the deceased could be possible by the crow bar. From combined reading of all the evidence, it can be legally concluded that the weapon of offence through which the death of the deceased has been possibly caused was concealed by the accused in a place where access of the general public was not there. The deceased met his death while he was in the company of the accused. The weapon of offence responsible for the injury was recovered at the instance of the accused. The dead body of the deceased has also been given recovery by the accused. From all these circumstances taken together culpability of causing death of the deceased can be fastened on the accused. There is no iota of evidence which can be utilized to dispel the above conclusion. On the other hand, the accused absconded and concealed himself till he was nabbed by the police. Though abscondence is not a circumstance to hold anybody guilty, but the same can be relied upon as additional incriminating circumstances which prove his guilty conduct. In absence of any extenuating circumstances/evidence to prove contrary the appellant can be adjudged as the perpetrator of crime. 11. Though abscondence is not a circumstance to hold anybody guilty, but the same can be relied upon as additional incriminating circumstances which prove his guilty conduct. In absence of any extenuating circumstances/evidence to prove contrary the appellant can be adjudged as the perpetrator of crime. 11. The appellant having been found guilty of causing death of the deceased, the next question comes for consideration as to whether the act of the accused proves culpable homicide and amounts to murder or not. Undisputedly, only one injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased was alone with the accused. Had there been any intention to murder, the accused could have dealt more number of blows causing more injuries. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer it is found that under Ext. 4 he seized a liquor bottle and shells of eggs. From the surrounding circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that the occurrence had taken place when the accused was under the influence of liquor. If all these circumstances are taken into consideration, it can reasonably be concluded that there was no intention to cause death and the incident has taken place by the heat of passion. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the evidence on record, the conviction u/S. 304(II), IPC is legally justified and cannot be interfered with. As it has been found that there was no intention to cause murder of the deceased, the appellant cannot be held guilty u/S. 302, IPC. Moreover, long 18 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence. At this distant date it would not be in the interest of justice to convert the conviction of the accused to one under Section 302, IPC. In the result, the Criminal appeal and the G.A. are dismissed. 13. L. MOHAPATRA, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.