Honble KAPADIA, J.—Sole appellant (`the accused, for short) was charged and tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 208/01 for offence under Sec. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC, for short) on the accusation that he had taken his wife Ladi on 20.7.2001 with him from her parents house with an intention to commit murder and after committing murder her dead body was thrown to river which was found floating on 27.7.2001. (2). At the end of the trial, as the accused was found guilty for committing murder of his wife Ladi, he was convicted vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2003 for commission of offence under Sec. 302 and Sec. 201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC, and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC. (3). Aggrieved by the judgment and order, the accused has filed instant criminal appeal with the aid of Sec. 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the Code", for short). (4). The prosecution case, as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial is as under: 4.1 On 27.7.2001, dead body of a lady was found floating in a river, therefore, formal inquest and other inquiries were conducted by the SDO, PS Chittorgarh. 4.2 On 28.7.2001, PW 5 Mohanlal, father of the deceased, identified the dead body as Smt. Ladi, his daughter. Postmortem was conducted, in which cause of her death was shown as death due to ante-mortem asphyxia on account of mechanical obstruction of upper respiratory tract with postmortem drowning in water. On the same day i.e. 28.7.2001, PW 5 Mohanlal submitted a written report to SHO, PS Chittorgarh, alleging therein that his daughter deceased Smt. Ladi was married with accused Bherulal about 7-8 years prior to the incident and that after some 2-3 years of their marriage, dispute arose between them, and therefore, Smt. Ladi returned to her parental home, and initiated criminal proceedings against accused and also proceeded for getting maintenance for herself and his son, Mukesh. 4.3 It was also alleged in the report that the application for maintenance filed by the deceased was allowed, and a revision petition preferred against that order was dismissed, and since accused-appellant Bherulal was not willing to pay the said amount, he had murdered Smt. Ladi. 4.4 The factum of the murder as revealed in the prosecution case is to the effect that Bherulal with certain other person had approached the parental home of the deceased Smt. Ladi located at village Bhicchor on 20.7.2001 and Smt. Ladi went with him, and was never found again as aforesaid, FIR for the aforesaid incident was filed on 28.7.2001 with the averment that dead body of Smt. Ladi has been found in a river at Chittorgarh, about 50 kms from Bhicchor. (5). On registering the FIR, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and during the course of investigation, the Panchnama of the scene of occurrence was drawn and statements of witnesses were recorded. (6). On completion of investigation, the accused was chargesheeted for the offence under Sec. 302 and 201 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, as the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Judge. Lateron the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chittorgarh for trial. (7). The learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chittorgarh (trial Court, for short), to whom the case was made over for trial, framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 and 201 IPC accused pleaded innocence, therefore, he was put to trial. (8). To prove the culpability of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 35 witnesses and relied on their oral testimony. The prosecution also produced 38 documents, which were exhibited and relied upon the contents of the same. (9). After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witness was over, the trial Court explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against him and recorded his father statement under Section 313 of the Code. In his further statement, the accused has denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety and stated that a false case involving him has been made out against him by the police. In his further statement, the accused has denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety and stated that a false case involving him has been made out against him by the police. He has also stated that he is an innocent person and no articles were recovered from him and for last so many years he was not residing at Ghatiyawali but he belongs to the same village and witnesses have some grudge against him, therefore, he has falsely been roped in the case. However, he has neither led any evidence nor examined any witness in support of his defence. (10). On appreciation, evaluation and scrutiny of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the homicidal death of deceased Ladi has been proved by the prosecution, there was motive on the part of the accused to kill his wife because he did not want to pay the amount of maintenance allowed in favour of the deceased. It was also held that deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, and thereafter, her dead body was found floating in a river and certain articles were recovered from the accused. Besides this, conduct of accused also established that the accused has committed the murder of his wife and therefore convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer im-prisonment, to which reference has been made in earlier paragraphs of the judgment. (11). Mr. Farzand Ali, learned counsel for the accused, in support of the Appeal, has raised the following contentions: (i) Misconceived and illegal reliance has been placed on the doctrine of "last seen together" which is not applicable to the present facts at all in light of clinching and binding precedents of the Honble Court in the case of Venkatesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2008 CrLR (SC) 534). (ii) It would be difficult to establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused where there was a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists because. (ii) It would be difficult to establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused where there was a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists because. (iii) As a matter of fact when the deceased was not seen after 20.7.2001 as per the version of the prosecution, there is an important and glaring fact to the contrary that PW.16 & 17, mother and brother of the deceased themselves admit that the accused was seen in the meanwhile at his usual places like residence and shop situated at Chittorgarh and Ghatiyawali which are both 50-60 kms far from village Bhicchor. (iv) The alleged recovery of the articles has been made completely dehores the principles of law and procedure and therefore it is honest in the eye of law as at the time of alleged recovery as per the statements of PW. 8 ad PW.9, the accused was not even present at the time of recovery and it is alleged by the witnesses that the place of recovery is different from the place as mentioned in the memo and that such a material discrepancy is absolutely fatal, more so, when it has been taken as a material piece of evidence relying on which the accused has been convicted. (v) As to the statement of prosecution witnesses, articles were already with the police, the learned trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence pertaining to the identification of the articles. On the aforesaid premise, according to him, the impugned judgment and order, convicting the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC is passed without appreciation of evidence in its proper perspective, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing this Appeal and thereby acquitting the accused of the offences with which he was charged. He, therefore, urged to allow this Appeal. (12). Per contra Mr. V.R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. According to him, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has duly proved and successfully established the complicity of the accused for commission of the offence of murdering his wife, and the trial Court has considered the circumstances after careful analysis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. According to him, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has duly proved and successfully established the complicity of the accused for commission of the offence of murdering his wife, and the trial Court has considered the circumstances after careful analysis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On the aforesaid premise, according to him, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not call for any interference in this appeal and the same is required to be confirmed by this Court. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the Appeal. (13). We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Farzand Ali, learned advocate of the Appellant and Mr. V.R. Mehta, learned PP for the Respondent- State of Rajasthan. We have perused the impugned judgment and order, and the set of evidence supplied by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their submissions. We have also undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence on record, which is read and re-read by the learned advocates of the parties with reference to board and reasonable probabilities of the case. (14). So far as the instant case is concerned, there is no eye witness to the incident of killing Smt. Ladi by the accused. The whole case of the prosecution has rested on the circumstantial evidence. (15). It is settled principle of law that in order to sustain conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must fulfill three conditions: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Further, in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. Further, in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The above principles are laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1388 . (16). It is also one of the settled principles of law that witnesses may tell lies but not circumstances. The Court must adopt cautious approach for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court has reiterated it in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ved Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 468 . (17). The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Madhusudan Pathak vs. State of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 702 has aptly and elaborately laid down the principles as to which are the circumstances establishing guilt of the accused. (18). The Supreme Court in the very well known case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , has laid down following five principles to base conviction on the circumstantial evidence: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) 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. (19). (19). In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipal vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 169 = RLW 2003(1) SC 126, the Supreme Court has held that merely because the accused could have had a motive for causing death of the deceased it would not by itself be enough to sustain the finding of guilt against him. (20). Keeping in forefront the aforesaid principles clearly elucidated by the Supreme Court, we may now advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether the prosecution has successfully established the chain of evidence to base conviction on circumstantial evidence adduced by it. (21). To prove the case against the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has pitted the following four circumstances against the accused: (i) As per the prosecution case, the accused had taken deceased Ladi from her parental home before her death and thereafter she was not seen alive, therefore the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. (ii) Certain articles were recovered at the instance of the accused. (iii) Conduct of the accused. (iv) Accused made a statement before PW. 18 Istiyakque Hussain to the effect that the Court has given its verdict against him to pay maintenance to the deceased and his verdict was awaited, meaning thereby that the accused was mindful to take revenge by killing her. (22). Now so far as the first circumstance, i.e. accused had taken the deceased from her parental home and thereafter she was not found alive, is concerned, prosecution mainly relief upon the oral testimony of five witnesses; they are PW.2 Mohd. Rafique - a neighbour, PW. 3 Radha Kishan- who is also a neighbour, PW. 5 Mohanlal- father of deceased Smt. Ladi, PW. 16 Chandi Bai - mother of the deceased and PW. 17 Jagdish Chandra- brother of the deceased. PW. 2 Mohd. Rafique in his oral testimony has stated that he was informed by Mohan Lal, father of deceased that he had sent Ladi with Bheru Lal. 5 Mohanlal- father of deceased Smt. Ladi, PW. 16 Chandi Bai - mother of the deceased and PW. 17 Jagdish Chandra- brother of the deceased. PW. 2 Mohd. Rafique in his oral testimony has stated that he was informed by Mohan Lal, father of deceased that he had sent Ladi with Bheru Lal. He testified that after marriage of Lad with accused Bheru Lal quarrel started between both of them and Smt. Ladi alongwith her son started living at her fathers residence and she also initiated proceedings against accused Bherulal in which decree was passed in favour of Smt. Ladi and accused Bherulal was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 26,000/- to Smt. Ladi and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700 per month. Thereafter, the matter was settled between the parties in the presence of Radhakishanji that Bherulal would pay Rs. 15,000 and would give land for cultivation and that he would keep Ladi as her desire. He further testified that the person who had accompanied Bherulal had given guarantee to that effect and thereafter Mohan Lal had sent Ladi with Bheru Lal and after than Ladi was not seen alive. The prosecution has thereafter examined and relied upon the evidence of PW. 3 Radhakishan. He has also deposed as per the depositions made by PW.2 Mohd. Rafique. The prosecution, thereafter, has examined and relied upon PW. 5 Mohanlal, who is father of the deceased. He has also testified about how the marriage had taken place between Ladi and Bheru Lal i.e. accused and thereafter quarrel took place between them and the matter was settled in Rs. 15000 and how thereafter at the persuasion of Radha Kishan, Ladi was sent with the accused and thereafter she was not found alive. The prosecution, thereafter examined and relied upon PW. 16 Chandi Bai, mother of the deceased. She has also testified in same lines as is testified by her husband PW. 5 Mohan Lal. Prosecution, thereafter, examined and relied upon PW. 17 Jagdish Chand, brother of the deceased. He has also testified on similar lines. He has further stated that when her sister was sent with the accused, she was wearing Mangal Sutra, watch etc. (23). She has also testified in same lines as is testified by her husband PW. 5 Mohan Lal. Prosecution, thereafter, examined and relied upon PW. 17 Jagdish Chand, brother of the deceased. He has also testified on similar lines. He has further stated that when her sister was sent with the accused, she was wearing Mangal Sutra, watch etc. (23). On re-appreciation of the evidence of the aforementioned five witnesses, there is no manner of doubt that deceased Ladi was sent with accused Bheru Lal on 20.7.2001 after settling the matter between husband and wife and thereafter Ladi was not seen alive and her dead body was found floating in a river on 27.7.2001. Accused has not offered any explanation to the effect that after taking Ladi on 20.7.2001 with him when Ladi separated from him. In his further statement also he has not stated anything about it. Postmortem report Ex. P/15 mentions the cause of death on account of ante-mortem asphyxia due to mechanical obstruction of upper respiratory tract with post mortem drowning in water, therefore, it is clear that prior to her throwing into river, her respiratory tract system was obstructed. (24). The contention, of the learned counsel for the accused, that there was long time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive and found dead and possibility of any other person after than accused coming in between exists, therefore, accused cannot be held liable for the murder of deceased Smt. Ladi, has no substance. In the case of Venkatesan (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused, there was delay in examination of witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable, the accused was identified for the first time in the Court. In that set of circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court considering that there was considerable time gap between the accused last seen with the deceased and discovery of dead body held the conviction not justified. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case because there is no evidence to the effect that because of long gap possibility of other person coming in between exists. In this connection, defence has to lead the evidence that somebody coming in between exists. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case because there is no evidence to the effect that because of long gap possibility of other person coming in between exists. In this connection, defence has to lead the evidence that somebody coming in between exists. At the cost of repetition, it be stated that in the instant case, there is clinching and reliable evidence of five prosecution witnesses PW. 2 Mohd. Rafique, PW. 3 Radha Kishan, PW. 5 Mohanlal, PW. 16 Chandi Bai and PW. 17 Jagdish Chandra that accused had taken the deceased with him on 20.7.2001 and thereafter her dead body was found floating in a river on 27.7.2001 and accused has not come forward with any explanation as to after taking the deceased Ladi with when she was separated from him. Therefore, this is the strongest circumstances against the accused for holding him guilty for the murder of his own wife. Therefore, according to us, the first circumstance pitted by the prosecution, that deceased was last seen with the accused, is proved. (25). So far as second circumstance i.e. recovery of article i.e. Watch and Mangal Sutra belonging to deceased, is concerned, they were recovered on the basis of information supplied by the accused. In this connection, the prosecution has relied upon oral testimony of PW.8 Bheru Lal, Panch Witness PW. 9 Nathu Lal and PW. 34 Rameshwar Gujar. On threadbare examination of their testimony, it is duly proved that all these articles, which were recovered on the basis of information volunteered, were taken by the deceased while she left her parental home and accompanied the accused on 20.7.2001. Therefore, second circumstance of recovery of articles pitted by the by the testimony of accused is also proved and established. (26). Now so far as the third circumstance i.e. conduct of the accused is concerned, it has to be held that after the accused had taken the deceased with him on 20.7.2001 and when she was not found upto 27.7.2001, no action has been taken by him to find out Ladi. In this connection, the accused is silent. He has not given any explanation in his further statement, therefore, this conduct of the accused is also unerringly establish the guilt of the accused. (27). In this connection, the accused is silent. He has not given any explanation in his further statement, therefore, this conduct of the accused is also unerringly establish the guilt of the accused. (27). Now so far as the last circumstance is concerned, in this connection, evidence of PW.18 lstiyaque Hussain is required to be appreciated. He has inter-alia testified that deceased Bheru Lal had boarded his vehicle and he asked him about the decision of the Court, then he replied that "the Court has given its verdict, now his verdict is awaited", therefore, the witness asked him what would be his verdict, to which he replied that he too would listen it and thereafter after passing of one year he came to know that accused had killed Ladi. This is also one of the important circum-stances, which unerringly points out that accused was mindful to kill deceased Ladi. (28). On overall re-appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and threadbare scrutiny of the same, according to us all the four circumstances pitted by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused are duly established and all the circumstances unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively form a complete chain that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and there cannot be another view than the view expressed by the trial Court. (29). We find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as according to us, no other finding, conclusion or order except the one reached by the trial Court is possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on the facts and in the circumstances emerging from the record of the case. (30). In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this Appeal, therefore, we do not incline to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. The instant Appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. (31). For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed, result of which is that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.2.2003 recorded against the accused for offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC is hereby confirmed and maintained.