Honble BHAGWATI, J.— The condemned prisoner Shiv Shanker for having committed the hideous crime of murder and rape upon an innocent girl of 10 years has been found guilty in the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 450 of IPC and thus convicted vide judgment dated July 27th 2002 by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota and sentenced as under: u/S. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment. u/S. 376 (2) (f) To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of two months. u/S. 450 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved with this judgment and order of sentence the accused- appellant has filed this criminal appeal. (2). The prosecution story succinctly runs as under:- That the complainant PW-5 Devi Shanker is handicapped and the deceased girl (named withheld by us) aged 10 years was his niece. PW-19 Ram Chandra Bai is the mother of the complainant Devi Shanker. Deceased had come to her maternal grand mothers house to ask about the well being of her handicapped maternal uncle Devi Shanker who usually lived at his field. On 19th November, 2001 both PW.19 Ram Chandra Bai and the deceased took the meals to the field for Devi Shanker. The complainant Devi Shanker after having taken the meals went to attend `haat along with PW-20 Ram Lal at Sangod. It is stated that at about 4 pm in the evening one PW-14 Brij Lal S/o. Badri Lal came to Sangod and informed him that his niece had been strangulated to death on the field and her dead body was lying on the spot whereupon, the complainant PW.5 Devi Shanker along with Brij Lal immediately went to police station and lodged the report Ex. P. 7. The police registered the FIR Ex. P/11 and commenced investigation. (3). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex. P/1, seized one pant and one shirt from the site vide memo Ex. P/2 and memo Ex. P. 7. The police registered the FIR Ex. P/11 and commenced investigation. (3). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex. P/1, seized one pant and one shirt from the site vide memo Ex. P/2 and memo Ex. P/3 respectively, caused to take photographs of the dead body of deceased and recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by doctor PW.3 Dr. Kedar Lal. Necessary memos were drawn. The Investigation Officer also recovered one rope from the place of occurrence vide Ex. P/9, prepared Panchayatnama of the deceased Ex. P/10, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. P/20, seized one underwear ¼pM~Mh½ and one pant from the accused Shiv Shanker which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence vide memo Ex. P/15, sent the seized articles to FSL for chemical analysis and after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused Shiv Shanker in the Court. (4). The court framed the charge in the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 450 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 26 witnesses to prove its case. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has claimed himself to be innocent and has put in defence that on account of engine on his well having run out of order on his tube-well, he had unbolted the same and efforted to start but it did not and thereafter, he went to Sangod to take one mechanic. When he returned to his village in the evening, he came to know that somebody had killed the girl. The accused has put no witness in defence. (5). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the impugned order of lower Court along with the relevant material available on record. (6). The learned counsel for the accused appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (i) That the accused Shiv Shanker was below the age of 16 years but the trial Court lost sight of this fact and did not send him for trial to juvenile Court. Trial conducted by the lower Court is wholly illegal and unconstitutional. (6). The learned counsel for the accused appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (i) That the accused Shiv Shanker was below the age of 16 years but the trial Court lost sight of this fact and did not send him for trial to juvenile Court. Trial conducted by the lower Court is wholly illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) That the accused Shiv Shanker was present on his field on the date of occurrence in routine or in its natural course as his field was juxtaposed to the field of complainant Devi Shanker. (iii) The said `Tapri, where the girl is alleged to have been ravished and murdered, is open from all sides and it is not possible to commit such an offence on open `Tapri. (iv) There is no ocular evidence available in this case and the whole prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances which may be said to have proved to be compatible with the guilt of the accused. (v) The prosecution case is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies on material particulars which have not been appreciated by the learned trial Court. (vi) There being not even a shred of evidence against the accused-appellant on record, he deserves to be acquitted and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. (7). Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the trial Court has critically analyzed the statements of all the prosecution witnesses in detail and explained all the material points tangibly. There does not seem to be any factual or legal infirmity in the judgment and the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper which calls for no intervention. (8). So far as, the age of the accused Shiv Shanker is concerned, the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota, held an inquiry with regard to the age of the appellant with reference to the date of incident in compliance of the order dated 10th April, 2003, rendered by this Court. After a detailed inquiry the learned Additional Sessions Judge determined the age of the accused-appellant to be above 18 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 19th November, 2001. After a detailed inquiry the learned Additional Sessions Judge determined the age of the accused-appellant to be above 18 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 19th November, 2001. In view of the order dated 6th September, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to the age of appellant on the date of occurrence this Court is not required to opine further as the issue of age, has already stood clinched. Thus, the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to his age is found to be devoid of force. (9). From the perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the relevant material, it is found that there is no ocular version of the hapless incident and the prosecution case wholly rests on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidences. The Court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. (10). In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 ) it was held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are: (SCC P. 185, Para 153). (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must or `should and not `may be established. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are: (SCC P. 185, Para 153). (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must or `should and not `may be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (11). The abovenoted propositions have been reiterated in Bodhraj vs. State of J & K (2002) 8 SCC 45 ); Bharat vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 106 ); Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 ); Reddy Sampath Kumar vs. State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603 ); Deepak Chandrakant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 172 ); Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172 ); and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 ). (12). In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2007) 10 SCC 172, this Court while reiterating the settled legal position, observed: (SCC P. 181, para 26) "26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence." (13). The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence." (13). A careful reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the conviction of the accused-appellant is based on the following circumstances:- (a) The first circumstance is that when PW-5 Devi Shanker went to attend `haat at Sangod, he left his mother Smt. Ram Chandra Bai and deceased in `tapri made in the field. PW-19 Smt. Ram Chandra Bai has stated that she and deceased both took food for Devi Shanker at the field. There both Devi Shanker and Ram Lal had the meals and then went to attend `hatwada ¼gVokMk½ at Sangod. She has further stated that after Devi Shanker and Ram Lal proceeding for Sangod, she also came back to her house and the girl remained alone in the field. The field of the accused Shiv Shanker is said to be juxtaposed to the field of complainant Devi Shanker. Shiv Shanker is the son of Shri Ram Kalyan but on that day Shiv Shanker alone was in his field. Smt. Ram Chandra Bai has further deposed that after 2-3 hours, when she came back to her `tapri she saw the accused-appellant Shiv Shanker near that. She asked the accused-appellant."- ^^esjh ¼e`rdk dk uke½ dgka gS ysfdu fkokadj ugha cksyk nqckjk iwNk rks Hkh ugha cksyk fQj fkokadj xkao dh rjQ [ksr ds ikl ls lM+d ls xkao dh rjQ Hkkxk fQj eSus Vkijh ij e`rdk dks [kkV ds mij lks;s gq, ns[kk mlds mij jtkbZ iMh Fkh og jtkbZ ls <dh gqbZ Fkh eSus e`rdk dks vkokt nh ij og ugha cksyhA** In her cross-examination also she has confirmed this fact stating that: ^^eSus mls esjh Vkijh ds ikl ns[kk Fkk ;g lgh gS fd eSa xbZ tc og Vkijh ds ikl Fkk vkSj tSls gh eSaus fkokadj dks iwNk rks og cksyk ugha vkSj ogka [kM+h rhu xk;ksa dks Hkxkus yx x;kA** (b) Turning to second circumstance, PW-13 Babu Lal, to further this version, has stated that on 19th November, 2001 he went to the house of Devi Shanker at about 2 pm to repay the money but none was found there. Thereafter, he went to the tube- well. Thereafter, he went to the tube- well. There, inside `tapri deceased and the accused-appellant Shiv Shanker both were sitting. He asked about Devi Shanker as to where he was? Thereupon the accused Shiv Shanker replied that he was not there and he had gone to Sangod. It was not known as to when would he come back? He further replied that he might not come back today as he could go to Suket also. Thereafter, he came back to his village. After one or two days, he came to know that the accused Shiv Shanker had revished the girl and strangulated her to death. (c) The third incriminating circumstance relates to the conduct of the accused after the incident. PW-12, Radheshyam, is a witness who had gone to Sangod to purchase fertilizers. During the day, he met Devi Shanker at Sangod. When he was coming back in the evening to his village Talchi by his bullock-cart, he found the accused Shiv Shanker near the hospital. The accused Shiv Shanker sat on his bullock-cart. On the way, he tried to talk to him but he kept quiet. He was looking flustered and perplexed. He was also looking like sick. He asked him as to why he was looking so? Then, he replied that he had committed one wrong. But he did not disclose as to what wrong he had committed. The statement of this witness is reproduced thus:- ^^gksLihVy ds ikl ikuh dk [ksy gS ogka ij fkokadj gkthj vnkyr feyk ;g esjh cSyxkMh ij cSB x;k eSaus blls cksyuk pkgk rks blus esjs ls ckr ugha dh cksyk ugha chekj tSlk <hyk <kyk gks jgk Fkk tSls ?kcjk;k gks eSaus blls iwNk fd rw vkt ,slk dSls gks jgk gS rks blus crk;k fd esjs ls ,d cgqr cMh xyrh gks xbZ gS D;k xyrh gks xbZ ;g ugha crk;k eSaus iwNk rks Fkk fd D;k xyrh gks xbZ ysfdu blus eq>s crk;k ugha** When he reached the village, he came to know that police had come and somebody had ravished the niece of Devi Shanker and murdered her. Having heard this news, he was reminded of the perplexed state of Shiv Shanker and his confession that "he had committed one wrong" but he did not disclose as to what wrong he had committed. Having heard this news, he was reminded of the perplexed state of Shiv Shanker and his confession that "he had committed one wrong" but he did not disclose as to what wrong he had committed. This made him to ruminate and settled that it was this wrong of ravishing the girl and killing her of which he was talking. The conduct of accused is made relevant by Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act. It is very much settled that only that piece of conduct can be held inculpatory for which accused has no reasonable explanation except the hypothesis that he is guilty. In the instant case when testimony of PW-12 Radheyshyam was read over to the accused-appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he replied `Galat Hai (It is incorrect). This explanation does not held the statement of PW-12 Radheshyam to be untrue. (14). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to examine Section 8 of the Evidence Act in State vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 . It was indicated as under:- (Paras 205 and 206) "205. Before proceeding further, we may advert to Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Section 8 insofar as it is relevant for our purpose makes the conduct of an accused person relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. It could be either previous or subsequent conduct. There are two Explanations to the Section, which explains the ambit of the word `conduct. They are: Explanation 1: The word `conduct in this Section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements, but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other Section of this Act. Explanation 2: When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. The conduct in order to be admissible, must be such that it has close nexus with a fact in issue or relevant fact. The Explanation 1 makes it clear that the mere statements as distinguished from acts do not constitute `conduct unless those statements ``accompany and explain acts other than statements. Such statements accompanying the acts are considered to be evidence of res gestae. Two illustrations appended to Section 8 deserve special mention. The Explanation 1 makes it clear that the mere statements as distinguished from acts do not constitute `conduct unless those statements ``accompany and explain acts other than statements. Such statements accompanying the acts are considered to be evidence of res gestae. Two illustrations appended to Section 8 deserve special mention. (f) The question is, whether A robbed B. The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in As presence- "the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B", and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant. (i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant. 206. We have already noticed the distinction highlighted in Prakash Chands case (supra) between the conduct of an accused which is admissible under Section 8 and the statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. The evidence of the circumstance, simplicitor, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where stolen articles or weapons used in the commission of the offence were hidden, would be admissible as `conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct, falls within the purview of Section 27, as pointed out in Prakash Chands case. In Om Prakash case (supra) ( AIR 1972 SC 975 ), this Court held that "event apart from the admissibility of the information under Section, the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Panchas that the accused had taken them to PW 11 (from whom he purchased the weapon) and pointed him out and as corroborated by PW.11 himself would be admissible under Section 8 as `conduct of the accused." (15). In the case on hand the conduct of appellant after the incident has close nexus with the fact in issue. Thus this circumstance also stands established against the appellant. In the case on hand the conduct of appellant after the incident has close nexus with the fact in issue. Thus this circumstance also stands established against the appellant. (d) One more witness PW-14 Brijraj, informed the complainant Devi Shanker about the death of deceased at Sangod, has stated that when Kaushaliya Bai told him that somebody had killed the deceased, he went on motor-cycle to the tube-well of Devi Shanker where Ram Chandra Bai, maternal grand-mother of the deceased was weeping and the deceased was lying on the cot who had been covered by two quilts. He removed the quilts and found the ligature marks on her neck, her tongue was coming out of mouth. This witness has further stated that he had seen the accused Shiv Shanker there who was chasing away the stranded cows. (e) PW. 15 Badri Lal is the father of PW-14 Brij Raj. His field is at the distance of 2 or 3 fields from the field of Devi Shanker. As per his deposition, to reach the field of Devi Shanker, anyone will have to pass through his field only. That, on the date of occurrence he was ill and taking rest on `takht (r[r). Around 4 pm, he saw the accused Shiv Shanker coming from the tube-well of complainant Devi Shanker and going to his own field. When he was passing through, he asked the accused Shiv Shanker as to whether his engine on the well active or not but he did not reply. At that time, he was very much flustered and perplexed. His eyes were red and he said that his engine in the well was not working. The witness has also deposed that he asked Shiv Shanker as to why was he looking perplexed or embarrassed but he did not reply and kept quiet. After 15-20 minutes he went towards Sangod. In the cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that he did not see any other person going towards field of Devi Shanker. (f) PW-18 Bheem Sen Chahar is the Investigating Officer of the case and arrested the accused Shiv Shanker in this case on 20 November, 2001, the next day of the occurrence. During medical examination Shri Chahar seized one underwear ¼pM~Mh½ and one pant of the accused Shiv Shanker which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. As per the seizure memo Ex. During medical examination Shri Chahar seized one underwear ¼pM~Mh½ and one pant of the accused Shiv Shanker which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. As per the seizure memo Ex. P/15 there were stains of semen on the pant of the accused at many places. (16). The Investigating Officer seized one shirt of complainant Devi Shanker which was being used by the accused Shiv Shanker to gag the mouth of deceased. He also seized one pant of Devi Shanker which was lying between the things of the deceased. It is said that the pant and shirt of Devi Shanker were lying in `tapri which were being used by the accused. (17). The pants and bushirt belonging to the complainant, seized from the spot, another pant and Chaddi, the accused was wearing at the time of commission of offence, skirt, vaginal swab and semen were sent by the Investigating Officer for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory and the FSL report Ex. P/21 is as under:- Description of Articles Packet Parcels No. Ex. No. Marked by me Detailes of Ex. A. 1. Pants B. 2. Bushirt C. 3. Pants " 4. Chaddi D. 5. Bushirt " 6. Skirt (Ghaghari) A. 1. 7. Vaginal swab A. 2. 8. Saliva B. 1. - Blood C. 1. - Semen Result of Examination Human semen was detected in exhibit No. 1 (from packet marked A), 2 (from B), 3,4 (from C), 5, 6 (from D) & 7 (from A.1). This human human semen is found to be detected from the pant and chaddi, the accused was wearing, from bushirt and shirt the deceased was wearing and the vaginal swab. Thereafter, these articles were forwarded to Serology Division which as per report Ex. P/25 found human blood on bushirt, skirt and vaginal swab. (18). Having scanned the prosecution evidence in totality, it is found that the accused was seen near the `tapri of Devi Shanker soon before the occurrence and even soon after the occurrence. The statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses given both in the examination in chief and the cross-examination establish that the accused Shiv Shanker remaining in his field was keeping a close and sharp vigil on the field of Devi Shanker where deceased was inside the `tapri. He was all through watching the movements of people coming and going there. The statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses given both in the examination in chief and the cross-examination establish that the accused Shiv Shanker remaining in his field was keeping a close and sharp vigil on the field of Devi Shanker where deceased was inside the `tapri. He was all through watching the movements of people coming and going there. It may also be inferred that when he found the deceased along in `tapri he went there and sat alone with her on the cot where he was seen by PW- 13 Babu Lal who had come there to repay the amount of Rs.2,500/- to Devi Shanker. When Babu Lal went back from there, the accused Shiv Shanker availed the opportunity of isolation or loneliness and in hurried heat ravished 10 years old innocent girl of tender age and thus fulfilled his wild erotic sortie. Not only this, he gagged the small childs mouth by a shirt of Devi Shanker and by roping neck strangulated her to death. The accused then covered the dead body of the deceased by two quilts and fled from there. Meantime, PW-19 the maternal grand-mother of deceased came back there from her house and saw accused Shiv Shanker chasing the stranded cows. She asked him about the deceased but he did not reply and kept quite and fled towards village. Thus the presence of the accused Shiv Shanker near the site of `tapri, soon before the occurrence and soon after the occurrence is very well proved from the prosecution evidence available on record. (19). Albeit, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has drawn our attention to the contradictions and inconsistencies creeping in the statements of the prosecution witnesses here and there, but they are found to be of very minor and fleepant in nature which are easily reconcilable. Minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses are bound to occur in every true and genuine case and such minor contradictions do not hold the witnesses untrustworthy unless they influence the substratum of the case adversely. (20). On the day of occurrence, the presence of PW-5, Devi Shanker in `hatwada at Sangod is very well proved from the statements of PW.12 Radheshyam, PW.14 Brijraj, and PW. 20 Ram Lal. (20). On the day of occurrence, the presence of PW-5, Devi Shanker in `hatwada at Sangod is very well proved from the statements of PW.12 Radheshyam, PW.14 Brijraj, and PW. 20 Ram Lal. Hence, the suggestion of defence put to the prosecution witnesses that the complainant Devi Shanker had ravished the deceased and killed her, is found to be totally vulnerable and untenable. (21). The plea of alibi raised by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that: ^^gekjs dq, dk baaftu [kjkc gks x;k FkkA eSus bftu ds cksYV [kksy fn;sA dksfkk dh fdUrq bftu ugha pykA cksYV b/kj m/kj gks x;sA lkspk firk Hkh yMsaxsA bl dkj.k lkaxksn gkV esa feL=h ysus pyk x;kA feL=h ugha feykA kke dks okfil xkao vk;k rc ekywe iMk fd dfork dks fdlh us ekj fn;k gSA eSa funksZ"k gwaA** is also found to be totally false and misconceived as it does not stand corroborated by any piece of evidence. The explanation is found to be untrue. This is additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it compete. The Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 2 WLC (SC) 673) observed in para 16 thus:- "In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu vs. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) ad Gulab Chand vs. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (Para 4)]." (22). Vide post mortem report Ex. P/5 deceased is found to have ligature mark of size 20cm x 2cm encircled the neck. Her tongue was between teeth. Abrasion of size 2 cm x 1/2 cm on right hand dorsal aspect. Vide post mortem report Ex. P/5 deceased is found to have ligature mark of size 20cm x 2cm encircled the neck. Her tongue was between teeth. Abrasion of size 2 cm x 1/2 cm on right hand dorsal aspect. As per doctors report these injuries were anti mortem in nature and the duration was within six hours before death. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This establishes that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. (23). Though the learned counsel for the appellant has vociferously canvassed that there is not even a shred of evidence on record which may fasten guilt upon the appellant. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has examined the prosecution evidence in a slipshod manner and has convicted the accused merely on the basis of surmises and conjunctures. (24). But we, having reflected and ruminated over the prosecution evidence in totality, find that the evidence of PW-5 Devi Shanker, PW.12 Radhey Shyam, PW.13 Babu Lal, PW. 14 Brij Raj, PW. 15 Badri Lal, PW. 19 Ram Chandra Bai and PW. 20 Ram Lal does inspire confidence and is held to be trustworthy. The statements of PW-5 Devi Shanker and PW.19 Ram Chandra Bai do not stand to be jettisoned merely because of the reason that they are related to the deceased. All the prosecution witnesses who have assisted in establishing the presence of the accused near the `tapri soon after and soon before the occurrence are well acquainted and known to the accused Shiv Shanker as they all belong to one village and keep on meeting every now and then. Their fields are juxtaposed to the fields of each other. No enmity of the accused with the complainant or his family members has been claimed by either of the parties. Hence, there does not crop up any question to falsely implicate the accused Shiv Shanker in the instant case. (25). From the facts established we find that circumstantial evidence in the instant case does not fall short of the required standard of proof. The circumstances so established are consistent and compatible only with the guilt of the appellant and inconsistent and incompatible with his innocence. (25). From the facts established we find that circumstantial evidence in the instant case does not fall short of the required standard of proof. The circumstances so established are consistent and compatible only with the guilt of the appellant and inconsistent and incompatible with his innocence. All the circumstances exclude with certainty the possibility of guilt of any person other than the appellant. (26). In the ultimate analysis, the impugned judgment is found to be cogent and well merited. It does not suffer from any infirmity factual or legal. We are in unison with the finding of conviction arrived at by the learned trial Court and in our firm view, the impugned judgment does not call for any intervention. (27). For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 302, 376 (2)(f) and 450 IPC are maintained.