Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 471 (MP)

Prem Singh v. State of M. P.

2008-03-26

ARUN MISHRA, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2008
JUDGMENT : ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the accused, they have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of deceased Bhura in the intervening night of 19/20-6-1991. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 20-6-1991 at about 7.30 a.m. Gaya Prasad, Watchman of Village Barwakhedi was going to Bhopal in bullock cart, he found be-headed dead-body of a male near village Barwakhedi, which fact he informed to the police station Barwakhedi, on the basis of which marg intimation was recorded under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code at Marg No. 11/91. Shri N.S. Damle was assigned the investigation, he reached to the spot and found the head about 20 ft. away in the field from the body. Near the head of the deceased sickle was found without wooden handle. One bag was also found in the hand of the deceased in which certain articles were also found. Dehati Nalisi was drawn, offence was registered, investigation was set up, body was sent for autopsy. Dr. D.K. Satpathi (PW-14) performed autopsy and opined that death was caused by hard and sharp object, death was due to decapitation and excessive bleeding, death was homicidal. Deceased was residing at village Narsinghkheda, for the last 3 years he started residing at Barwakhedi. Due to his absence at Narsinghkheda, accused Prem Singh developed illicit relationship with Kailashi Bai wife of the deceased. When the relationship was objected to by the members of the family and society, Kailashi Bai was taken by the deceased to the village Barwakhedi, thereafter both were residing at village Barwakhedi. On 19-6-1991 at village Fandakala, Bhura told Anil Shriwas (PW-2) that he was going to Bhopal, at that time accused persons also came and deceased and accused went away together. Deceased Bhura also visited the shop of Kesri Singh at about 3.30 PM and left certain articles, bag and basket in his shop and proceeded towards Bhopal. Both the accused as well as deceased Bhura went to the police station Harijan Kalyan at about 3 p.m. and made enquiry about complaint of Rajju. Thereafter accused and deceased were seen at Shiv Shankar Bhojanalaya where they were having food. It was also found that at about 6 p.m. Gopal Singh (PW-12) saw both the accused and the deceased in Royal Market, Bhopal. Thereafter accused and deceased were seen at Shiv Shankar Bhojanalaya where they were having food. It was also found that at about 6 p.m. Gopal Singh (PW-12) saw both the accused and the deceased in Royal Market, Bhopal. They were going towards hospital to see son of Veerbhan (PW-18) who was admitted in the hospital. Veerbhan (PW-18) has also confirmed the fact that accused persons visited his ailing son Rajkumar in the hospital on 19-6-1991. Lastly both the accused in the company of the deceased went to the shop of Kesri Singh about 8 p.m. Deceased collected his articles' bag and the basket, they proceeded towards village Barwakhedi, thereafter Bhura was not seen alive. It was also confirmed that the sickle was purchased by both the accused from the shop of Ahmad Bhai (PW-23). Prem Singh and Shankar Lal both had purchased sickle from his shop. Anil Shriwas (PW-2) and Kesri Singh (PW-11) identified the accused person in identification parade held at Central Jail, Bhopal by N.A. Rizvi (PW-20), seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. On sickle and clothes the presence of blood was found. 3. The accused abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They are innocent. They had objected about the construction of pond by village Sarpanch and witnesses have deposed against them due to the aforesaid rivalry. 4. The prosecution has examined in all 26 witnesses in defence. Two witnesses Ramesh Chandra and Om Prakash have been examined. The trial Court has convicted the appellants for commission of offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment, aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred. 5. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Manish Mishra for appellants has submitted that chain of circumstances in the instant case to base the conviction on the appellant is not complete. He has submitted that Parvat Singh (PW-10) has stated that deceased had gone with him to Narsinghkheda in the evening, thus evidence of last seen at Bhopal and village Fandakala cannot be relied upon. He has further submitted that statement of Kesri Singh (PW-11) with respect to last seen is not reliable. He has submitted that Parvat Singh (PW-10) has stated that deceased had gone with him to Narsinghkheda in the evening, thus evidence of last seen at Bhopal and village Fandakala cannot be relied upon. He has further submitted that statement of Kesri Singh (PW-11) with respect to last seen is not reliable. Even if it is accepted, the dead-body was found at quite distant place and deceased was seen in the company of the accused at about 8 p.m. and dead-body was found in the morning at 7.30 a.m. thus the evidence of Kesri Singh is not sufficient to fasten the guilt. With respect to purchase of sickle by the accused persons, statement of Ahmad Bhai (PW-23) is not reliable. The sickle was not kept in the sealed cover, thus there was possibility of it being changed by the prosecution in order to prove the story set up. Beside it has not been established by the medical evidence that sickle was the weapon of offence and lying of the sickle in the agricultural field is not uncommon, thus the recovery of sickle cannot be said to be incriminating circumstance as against the accused/appellants. He has further submitted that motive has also not been established. The illicit relationship of Prem Singh with Kailashi Bai wife of the deceased has also not been established. He has submitted that accused treated the wife of the deceased as his sister, she used to tie Rakhi to Prem Singh, thus there was no question of motive to commit the murder and illicit relationship has not been established. Last seen together is the weak type of evidence, motive has not been proved, there was not evidence of blood grouping, weapon was not shown to the Doctor, consequently commission of offence by the accused appellant has not been established. 6. Shri S.K. Rai, learned Govt. Advocate for State has supported the judgment. He has submitted that there is strong evidence of motive to show that accused Prem Singh was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and that is why murder of Bhura was committed. He has also submitted that accused were last seen in the company of deceased not only at Bhopal but later on at village Fandakala in the shop of Kesri Singh (PW-11). There is overwhelming evidence of last seen together, there is nothing to discard the evidence of last seen. He has also submitted that accused were last seen in the company of deceased not only at Bhopal but later on at village Fandakala in the shop of Kesri Singh (PW-11). There is overwhelming evidence of last seen together, there is nothing to discard the evidence of last seen. There is evidence of Veerbhan (PW-18) pointing out that accused along with the deceased visited the Hamidia Hospital to see his son who was admitted in the hospital. Purchase of sickle by both the accused persons has been proved by Ahmad Bhai (PW-23). Identification of the accused persons was done and memo (P-2) was prepared. The accused were correctly identified by Anil Shriwas (PW-2) and Kesri Singh (PW-11). Proceedings of identification has been proved by N.A. Rizvi (PW-20), Nayab Tehsildar, District Huzur. The sickle was bearing star mark, which was trade mark of Ahmad Bhai (PW-23), the blood stained sickle was found as apparent from spot maps (P-6 and P-14) prepared by Patwari and by Investigating Officer respectively. The sickle was found near the head and presence of blood has been found on it, it was weapon of offence, decapitated body was lying on the road and head was lying 20 ft. away from the body along with sickle. The Doctor has clearly opined that weapon used to commit offence was having sharp edged from one side not from the other side, it was light weight weapon. At least eight blows were inflicted on the neck of the deceased to decapitate the head, thus the sickle has been proved to be weapon of offence. Nature of injuries described by Doctor correspond with the injury to be caused by sickle, accused have failed to explain their conduct and that when they were seen about 50-55 Kms. away from their village along with the deceased at Village Fandakala, when and how deceased parted with their company. The body was found next very day in the morning. The body was found by Gaya Prasad (PW-4) who was coming from village Barwakhedi and on the way he found that body of the deceased was lying of which report was lodged by him at Police Station Huzur. Thus chain of circumstances is complete and circumstances unerringly points to the guilt of the appellants. Thus the conviction of the appellants is proper, no case for interference in the appeal is made out. 7. Thus chain of circumstances is complete and circumstances unerringly points to the guilt of the appellants. Thus the conviction of the appellants is proper, no case for interference in the appeal is made out. 7. First circumstance is about the motive to commit the offence, second is about last seen, third circumstance projected in the instant case is the purchase of sickle by the accused and its recovery from the place of incident and blood was found on the sickle (weapon of offence). 8. First we consider evidence as to the motive to commit murder. Bhagirath (PW-8) has stated that accused Prem Singh used to visit Kailashi Bai in the absence of Bhura, Kailashi Bai also used to visit the house of accused Prem Singh, that was the reason that accused Prem Singh committed murder of Bhura. At the time when offence was committed Kailashi Bai was at village Barwakhedi. In the cross-examination witness has stated that Kailashi Bai used to tie Rakhi to accused Prem Singh. But relationship was otherwise as apparent from other evidence. Badri Prasad (PW-9) has stated that Prem Singh and Kailashi Bai used to visit each other, even in the absence of Bhura accused used to visit Kailashi Bai, which used to be objected by the persons residing in the locality and Kailashi Bai was turned out of the caste due to the aforesaid illicit relationship maintained by her with the accused. He has withstood the cross examination, it was suggested in his cross-examination that accused Prem Singh also belonged to the same party to which he belonged. About the conduct of the accused and Kailashi Bai, persons of locality have also objected to. When his police statement is considered, there is no significant omission in that. Facts have been mentioned in substance in the police statement also which he has stated in the Court. Parvat Singh (PW-10) has also stated that Bhura had objected to the relationship of Prem Singh with Kailashi Bai, due to that Kailashi Bai was sent from Village Narsinghkheda to Barwakhedi, still accused Prem Singh used to visit Kailashi Bai at village Barwakhedi, thus the witness entertained the doubt that murder of Bhura was committed due to the aforesaid reason by Prem Singh. Pooran (PW-13) resident of village Narsinghkheda has also stated that Bhura and his wife Kailashi Bai resided at Village Narsinghkheda for two years, accused Prem Singh was having illicit relationship with Kailashi Bai, Pooran had sent intimation to Bhura that he should take away Kailashi Bai otherwise Prem Singh would run away with Kailashi Bai, thereafter deceased Bhura had taken Kailashi Bai along with him to village Barwakhedi still accused Prem Singh used to visit Barwakhedi also. There is nothing brought out in the cross-examination of the witness so as to disbelieve his version. Thus from the aforesaid evidence it stands proved that accused Prem Singh was having illicit relationship with Kailashi Bai wife of deceased Bhura and it was objected to by members of the society, Kailashi Bai thereafter, started living at Barwakhedi along with deceased Bhura still accused Prem Singh used to visit at Village Barwakhedi though he was residing at Narsinghkheda to meet Kailashi Bai. The relationship was objected by several persons. 9. Coming to the evidence of last seen. Evidence of last seen at different places, have been furnished by seven witnesses Anil Shriwas (PW-2), Bhojraj (PW-5), Parvat Singh (PW-10), Kesri Singh (PW-11), Gopal Singh (PW-12) Veerbhan Saroj (PW-18) and Vikram Singh (PW-26). It is pertinent to mention here that accused Prem Singh was resident of village Narsinghkheda, accused Shankar Lal was resident of village Sukhlia Hansraj, deceased Bhura was residing at village Barwakhedi along with Kailashi Bai, dead-body was found 7 Kms. away from police station Khajuri, the dead-body was found on the way from Fandakala to Barwakhedi as apparent from spot map (Ex.P-14) prepared by Investigating Officer N.S. Damle (PW-25). Village Fandakala is about 2 Kms. away from the Police Station Khajuri. Accused were residing at the village having distance of 50-55 kms. Anil Shriwas (PW-2) has stated that Bhura had come to him from Fandakala at about 3 p.m. and informed him that he was going to Bhopal, he was carrying one basket and bag which he wanted to handover to him but he refused, thereafter Bhura proceeded towards bus stand, he was alone at that time. The witness was declared hostile. Bhojraj (PW-5) has stated that Bhura had proceeded towards village Narsinghkheda from Sehore Bus Stand, but the witness has not stated that he had actually seen the deceased going to Narsinghkheda. The witness was residing at Barwakhedi. The witness was declared hostile. Bhojraj (PW-5) has stated that Bhura had proceeded towards village Narsinghkheda from Sehore Bus Stand, but the witness has not stated that he had actually seen the deceased going to Narsinghkheda. The witness was residing at Barwakhedi. Vikram Singh (PW-26) head constable of Harijan Kalyan, Bhopal has stated that on 19-6-1991 when he was sitting in the police station along with another person whose name was disclosed to be Bhura. Accused Prem Singh made enquiry about the complaint of Rajju. It was informed by the accused that they had come to Bhopal in order to see son of Veerbhan Saroj in the hospital. Gopal Singh (PW-12) has also stated that he knew accused as well as deceased Bhura from earlier point of time, when he was waiting at the Royal Market Bus Stop, Bhopal, he saw both the accused in the company of deceased Bhura. He had made enquiry where they were going, it was informed to him that they were going to Hamidia Hospital in order to see son of Veerbhan. After Royal Market Bus Stop and Hamidia Hospital Bhopal the accused persons were last seen in the company of the deceased Bhura at village Fandakala, District Sehore. Veerbhan has narrated the later part of the last seen. With respect to company of the accused with the deceased we find on record statement of Veerbhan Saroj (PW-18), he has clearly stated that he was not knowing the deceased but he knew the accused persons, the accused persons visited Hamidia Hospital on 19-6-1991 in the evening, yet another person whose name was disclosed to be Bhura, he has given the description of Bhura which tallies with the deceased. Veerbhan was a teacher and accused had gone to Hamidia Hospital along with the deceased to see his son, who was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve version of Veerbhan that deceased accompanied the accused persons at the time when accused had gone to see son of Veerbhan to the Hamidia Hospital. Kesri Singh (PW-11) in Paragraph 3 of his deposition stated that the deceased Bhura had come alone to his shop at about 3.30 p.m. to put his bag and basket in the shop, after giving the basket and bag Bhura had left the place and went towards Bairagarh. Kesri Singh (PW-11) in Paragraph 3 of his deposition stated that the deceased Bhura had come alone to his shop at about 3.30 p.m. to put his bag and basket in the shop, after giving the basket and bag Bhura had left the place and went towards Bairagarh. Deceased Bhura came back along with both the accused persons in the night at 8 p.m. and thereafter deceased proceeded towards Barwakhedi in the company of both the accused persons. He has made identification of the accused persons in Bhopal jail. He has owned the signatures on “identification” memo (P-2) in the portion B to B. Considering the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons at P.S. Harijan Kalyan, Bhopal at 3.30 p.m. by Vikram Singh (PW-26) and at Royal Market Bus Stop Bhopal by Gopal Singh (PW-12) and thereafter accused had gone to the Hamidia Hospital to see son of Veerbhan (PW-18) along with deceased Bhura and thereafter they were seen in the company at about 8 p.m. at village Fandakala by Kesri Singh (PW-11) and they had proceeded towards the place of incident as the road from Fandakala reaches to Barwakhedi as apparent from spot map (P-2) and it has come in the statement of Kesri Singh that accused as well as deceased were going together towards Barwakhedi. 10. The Apex Court in Bibhachha vs. State of Orissa, 2001 Cr. L.J. 2895 has observed in the circumstances that accused and the deceased were last seen together. Clothes were identified to be worn by the accused, human blood of blood group of deceased found on the clothes, there was recovery of gold chain belonging to deceased sold at instance of accused and there was recovery of weapon of offence at instance of accused. In the circumstances it was held that circumstances were enough to base the conviction of the appellant. The Apex Court in Mohibur Rahman and Another vs. State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715 considered the effect of last seen in the company and subsequent conduct of the accused and recovery of the body at the instance of accused. In the circumstances it was held that circumstances were enough to base the conviction of the appellant. The Apex Court in Mohibur Rahman and Another vs. State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715 considered the effect of last seen in the company and subsequent conduct of the accused and recovery of the body at the instance of accused. The Apex Court has observed that so far as the accused Taijuddin is concerned, apart from his having been last seen in the company of the deceased, there is evidence available to show that a day or two after the disappearance of Rahul he contacted the relations of the deceased and instead of revealing to them how and where he had departed from the company of the deceased, assigned an obviously false reason for the deceased being untraceable which reason was intended to set the mind of the relations thinking on different or imaginary tracks. These three circumstances taken together, namely the deceased last seen in the company of the accused, the accused giving a false explanations about the whereabouts of the deceased and the accused having knowledge of the dead-body cut into two pieces being buried, coupled with the fact of failure on the part of the accused to offer any “reasonable explanation” of any of the said circumstances, is sufficient to fasten the liability of murder on the accused. In Sajadevam alias Sagadevan vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2003 (1) SCC 534 the Apex Court has observed thus:- “19. The last circumstance relied on by the courts below pertains to the stand taken by the appellants in the trial as to parting company with Vadivelu. Here we must notice that as discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has established the fact that Vadivelu was seen in the company of the appellants from the morning of 5-3-1985 till at least 5 p.m. on the same day, when he was brought to his house and thereafter his dead-body was found in the morning of 6-3-1985. Therefore, it has become obligatory on the appellants to satisfy the Court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them. This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. In the instant case the appellants have failed to discharge this onus. In their statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever. In the evidence of PW-25, it is elicited that on 5-3-1985 in the afternoon when Vadivelu was produced before the said witness, he after interrogation allowed Vadivelu to go, but then it is found from his evidence that he instructed A-1 to keep a watch over Vadivelu. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon A-1 to have explained to the Court in what circumstances they parted company. He has not given any explanation in this regard. On the contrary, the prosecution has established the fact that on the very day at about 5 p.m. Vadivelu was brought to the house of PW-1 by the appellants which was seen by PW-5. This part of the evidence of PW-5 has gone unchallenged in the cross-examination and, therefore, we will have to proceed on the basis that, what is stated by PW-5 in this regard is true. If that be so, the prosecution has established the fact that on 5-3-1985 at 5 p.m. Vadivelu was still in the company of these appellants and, therefore, in the absence of any specific explanation from the appellants in this regard, and in view of the other incriminating circumstances against the appellants having been proved by the prosecution, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against these appellants as to their part in the missing of Vadivelu. At this point, it may be relevant to note that though no specific stand has been taken by the appellants as to their parting company with Vadivelu, in their statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, it is seen from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 5 that A-1 told the said witnesses on the night intervening between 5-3-1985 and 6-3-1985 that Vadivelu had escaped from the police station when he was allowed to sleep in the verandah of the police station. This explanation given by A-1 to PW-1 which was also heard by PWs. 1 and 5 that A-1 told the said witnesses on the night intervening between 5-3-1985 and 6-3-1985 that Vadivelu had escaped from the police station when he was allowed to sleep in the verandah of the police station. This explanation given by A-1 to PW-1 which was also heard by PWs. 5 and 14, clearly shows that the same is totally false and obviously was an excuse made by the appellants to conceal the true facts and, therefore, this circumstance of A-1 making a false statement to PW-1 can also be taken as a circumstance against the appellants, in establishing the appellants' guilt. This Court in more than one case has held, that if the prosecution, based on reliable evidence, establishes that the missing person was last seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is obligatory on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company. [See: Joseph vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197 ] Therefore, we are in agreement with the finding of the courts below that Circumstance 7 also stands established against the appellants. The Apex Court has emphasized that it become obligatory on the appellant to satisfy the Court as to how, where and in what manner deceased parted company with the accused when they were in company for the sufficient time. In their statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever. It was incumbent to give explanation in this regard. The Apex Court has further observed that if the prosecution, based on reliable evidence, establishes that the missing person was last seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is obligatory on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Raddy and Another vs. State of A.P. AIR 2006 SC 1656 relied upon by Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants, the Apex Court has observed that factual matrix of the case that exact time of death of deceased could not be determined, recovery of knife was made from the co-accused, evidence of motive was not found reliable, consequently it was held that evidence of last seen required corroboration. Counsel appearing for the appellants, the Apex Court has observed that factual matrix of the case that exact time of death of deceased could not be determined, recovery of knife was made from the co-accused, evidence of motive was not found reliable, consequently it was held that evidence of last seen required corroboration. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Sunny Kapoor vs. State (U.T. of Chandigarh) with Ram Asre vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Sanjay vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh, AIR 2006 SC 2242 in which it was observed that evidence of last seen by itself does not conclude that appellant was in the company and killed the deceased and thrown the body in the culvert, the observation was made on the strength of decision in Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438 , it was not relied upon for the reason that there was considerable time gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the appellant and the time when PW-11 found the dead-body. In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the “last-seen” evidence. It is apparent that every decision has factual matrix to operate. It cannot be laid down that mere circumstance of last seen is not conclusive for every case or that it will not be substantial evidence in other case, it would depend upon the nature of circumstance brought on record and inferences which can be drawn from the factual matrix available in particular case.” 11. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, evidence of last seen is material circumstance, apart from that we have found the motive to be established and other circumstances to be discussed hereinafter. Evidence of last seen assumes significance in the instant case as the place where accused were residing was 50-55 Kms. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, evidence of last seen is material circumstance, apart from that we have found the motive to be established and other circumstances to be discussed hereinafter. Evidence of last seen assumes significance in the instant case as the place where accused were residing was 50-55 Kms. away from the place of incident and deceased was in company with the accused at village Fandakala at 8 p.m. and there is evidence indicating that they were in the company right from 3.30 p.m. they had gone to Police Station, thereafter they were seen at Royal Market Bus Stop, Bhopal, thereafter they visited Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, then came back together to the village Fandakala, then they had proceeded towards Barwakhedi, precisely on the way from the village Fandakala to Barwakhedi, the dead-body was found, the bag which deceased Bhura was carrying which he collected from the shop of Kesri Singh, was found entangled in his arm in the decapitated body. The accused in the instant case have failed to explain when and how they parted with the company of the deceased when they were in the company for the long period. As per autopsy surgeon Dr. D.K. Satpathy (PW-14), the death was within 24 hours. The autopsy was performed on 20-6-1991 at about 4 p.m. thus time of commission of offence comes after 8 p.m. sometime in the night. The place where dead-body was found was only 2-3 Kms. away from village Fandakala and accused and deceased had proceeded towards village Barwakhedi as apparent from statement of Kesri Singh, thus the accused have failed to give explanation as required by dictum of the Apex Court in Sajadevam alias Sagadevan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai (supra). The facts are akin to the aforesaid decision. The accused and deceased were in company for substantial time, thus it was obligatory on the accused to explain how and when they parted the company of the deceased 50-55 kms. away from their village. In the statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code they have not made any effort to explain the aforesaid circumstance. 12. Yet another circumstance is their against the accused persons. It is apparent from the medical evidence that decapitation was done in merciless manner. Dr. D.K. Satpathi (PW-14) has stated that in Para-3(vii) that atleast 8 time injuries were inflicted on the neck. 12. Yet another circumstance is their against the accused persons. It is apparent from the medical evidence that decapitation was done in merciless manner. Dr. D.K. Satpathi (PW-14) has stated that in Para-3(vii) that atleast 8 time injuries were inflicted on the neck. In the cross-examination in Para-8 he has stated that weapon used was not heavy one as such it became necessary to inflict several injuries on the deceased to separate the head. In Para-9 he has further stated that weapon used was having sharp edge only from one side and from other side it should be blunt. “Man may lie but circumstances do not” the head was found 20 ft. away from the body and sickle was found lying by the side of the head without its handle as apparent from the spot map. It was blood stained, map Ex.P-6 and P-14 makes it clear that sickle was weapon of offence by which decapitation was caused. The nature of injuries described by Dr. in Para 3(3) also indicate that injuries were caused with a weapon like sickle. We find no force in the submission that as weapon of offence was not sent to the Doctor, chain is not complete and sickle is not proved to be weapon of offence. Considering the statement made by the Doctor in Paras 3, 8 and 9 it can safely be inferred that sickle was used for the purpose of killing the deceased and the details given by the Doctor as to the kind of weapon with which offence was committed tallies with sickle seized in the instant case. There is yet another clinching evidence on record that this sickle was purchased by the accused person as deposed by Ahmad Bhai (PW-23). He has identified the sickle and it is apparent from the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-19) that all the articles were in the sealed bag. There was no reason for the prosecution to change the weapon of offence. In the instant case there is nothing to doubt the seizure of the sickle from the spot and there was no reason for the prosecution to change the sickle and to show that it was the one which was purchased from the shop of Ahmad Bhai (PW-23). Thus, we find no force in the submission of Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel that sickle was changed. Thus, we find no force in the submission of Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel that sickle was changed. Ahmad Bhai (PW-23) has not only identified the sickle but has also stated that he used to put star mark on every sickle and there was star mark on the sickle which was seized from the spot, it was purchased by the accused person from his shop and it was purchased before 10 months. The fact remains that sickle was seized from the spot and accused were in the company of the deceased Bhura and they have purchased the same sickle from the shop of Ahmad Bhai (PW-23). The wooden handle of sickle was also lying on the spot, Ahmad Bhai has also stated that sickle was purchased along with the handle, both were seized from the spot. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve the independent testimony of Ahmad Bhai also, he was having no grudge against the appellants. The defence was taken by the accused that as they had objected about construction of pond being made by Panchayat/Sarpanch, witnesses have deposed against them. The defence is totally flimsy. So many witnesses of different places have deposed against them, they were not having any grudge against them at all. No person would depose against the accused on the basis of aforesaid so called ill-will. There was no reason to harbour any ill-will against the accused persons. There was presence of human blood on the sickle as apparent from report (P-19) though blood grouping evidence is not available, which was not necessary as observed by Apex Court in Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330 . In the instant case seizure of the sickle-cannot be said to be fabricated, it was weapon of offence seized from the spot, thus presence of blood also indicate that it was used for the purpose of commission of offence. 13. The chain of circumstances in the instant case is complete so as to fasten the guilt on the accused and accused have also failed to explain how and when they parted with the deceased. 13. The chain of circumstances in the instant case is complete so as to fasten the guilt on the accused and accused have also failed to explain how and when they parted with the deceased. There is evidence of purchase of sickle which was weapon of offence, there was presence of human blood also, accused Prem Singh was having motive also, he was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased Kailashi Bai, thus the appeal is found to be devoid of merit, same deserves to be dismissed. 14. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender forthwith, failing which police to nab them.