JUDGMENT B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. The appellant was held guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted for commission of murder of one L. Shivaraman by a judgment dated 9th August, 2002 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for one day by an order dated 5th September, 2002. He is in appeal against such conviction and sentence. .2. The facts leading to trial unfold that the appellant as also L. Shivaraman, deceased, were helmsmen/seamen on a Cargo Ship Motor Vessel "Lok Prem" owned by Shipping Corporation of India which was chartered by a South African private company for carrying chrome alloy. The ship was on its voyage from South Africa to Japan via Singapore. On way to Singapore its auto pilot turned dysfunctional. Necessary repair could not be carried out for non-availability of technicians on board and the ship had, thus, to be manually steered by helmsmen. .The helmsmen on board led by the appellant and one M.Y. Talgharkar showed reluctance to steer the ship manually and insisted for repair of auto pilot and payment of their long overdue overtime. The appellant and M.Y. Talgharkar instigated their fellow helmsmen and others on board not to obey the commands of the Master of the ship unless their said demands were acceded to. Efforts were made at Singapore to make the auto pilot functional but the same did not materialise. The Master of the ship reported the state of affairs on board to the Shipping Corporation of India whereupon directions were issued by Dr. Leo Barnes, General Secretary, NUSI to crew members to perform their duties in obedience to lawful commands of the Master of the ship. 3. An incident of assault by L. Shivaraman, deceased on the appellant took place on 30th November, 1996 in which the appellant sustained some cut injuries on his hands. The incident was reported to the Master of the ship Shri Radha Krishan Ambady, PW-5. The appellant and the deceased were earlier sharing Cabin No. 25. After the said incident, the appellant shifted from Cabin No. 25 to Cabin No. 23. 4. On 1st December, 1996, when the ship was on high seas, the appellant took off from his duty as helmsman on the ground of pain in his hands due to cut injuries. The appellant and the deceased were earlier sharing Cabin No. 25. After the said incident, the appellant shifted from Cabin No. 25 to Cabin No. 23. 4. On 1st December, 1996, when the ship was on high seas, the appellant took off from his duty as helmsman on the ground of pain in his hands due to cut injuries. Another helmsman, namely Baria was asked to do the duty as a replacement. .5. Around 1510 hrs. on 1st December, 1996 the appellant allegedly came to the bridge where IInd Officer Kalyan Singh (PW-6) was present on duty. He was holding a blood stained knife and his hands were smeared in blood. He confessed to Kalyan Singh (PW-6) that he had killed L. Shivaraman. On being asked by Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6), the appellant handed over the blood stained knife to him which he (Kalyan Singh) placed in a cloth piece without touching the same. Sh. Kalyan Singh, (PW-6) gave a call to Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5), Master of the ship, informing him of the incident. Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5) came to the bridge where the appellant was found standing near Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW6). He heard the appellant saying that he had killed L. Shivaraman. On incident being reported, pursuant to an instruction from concerned quarter, the ship was diverted to Hongkong. On being so directed by Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW5), Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) got the body of the deceased cleaned up for being preserved in the fish room. The bloodstained knife was kept in his safe custody by Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5). The appellant was tied at the bridge and kept under guard before being shifted to the hospital on board. Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5) established radio contact with concerned person in India to report about the incident and thereupon an FIR No. 10(s)/1996 was registered by CBI on 6th December, 1996. On reaching Hong Kong the body of L. Shivaraman was handed over to Hong Kong Police for postmortem examination. Two CBI officers reached Hong Kong on 7th December, 1996. The Investigating Officer visited the ship and recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. The blood stained knife and deceaseds boiler suit as also relevant papers from Hong Kong police were taken into his possession by the Investigating Officer. The appellant was arrested and brought to Delhi. Two CBI officers reached Hong Kong on 7th December, 1996. The Investigating Officer visited the ship and recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. The blood stained knife and deceaseds boiler suit as also relevant papers from Hong Kong police were taken into his possession by the Investigating Officer. The appellant was arrested and brought to Delhi. His specimen finger prints were obtained which were sent to CFSL for comparison with finger prints on the knife that was seized from the appellant. The specimen finger prints of the appellant were opined to tally with finger prints on the knife. 6. The learned trial court taking note of the incident of 30th November, 1996 in which the appellant sustained injuries at the hands of the deceased as motive on the part of the appellant for commission of the crime, the extra judicial confession made by him to Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) as also presence of his fingerprints on the knife that was allegedly used as the weapon of offence, held the appellant guilty of committing the murder of L. Shivaraman on board and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. Arguing for the appellant Sh. G. Tushar Rao, Adv. made oral as well as written submissions to assail the impugned conviction and sentence. He was critical of the knife Ex. P-3 - the weapon of offence, being not sealed on alleged seizure thereof from the appellant. He contended that the appellant was kept tied up on the bridge for about 2/3 days before his shifting to the hospital and there was thus sufficient opportunity to force him to hold the knife Ex. P-3 to get his finger prints thereon. It was pointed out that inspite of 14 stab wounds on the neck and torso of the deceased, no blood was noticeable on the clothes of the appellant nor any of the witnesses noticed blood on the bridge or the alleyway between the scene of crime and the bridge. It was contended that the clothes of the appellant which he was wearing at the relevant time were not seized by the Master of the ship to establish that the same carried blood stains of the deceased. Further argument was that though at the time when the appellant allegedly approached Sh. It was contended that the clothes of the appellant which he was wearing at the relevant time were not seized by the Master of the ship to establish that the same carried blood stains of the deceased. Further argument was that though at the time when the appellant allegedly approached Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) on the bridge and confessed before him about commission of murder of L. Shivaraman, two helmsmen namely, Baria and Talgharkar were also present there and as per evidence of prosecution witnesses they could have over heard what the appellant said, they were left out and not examined by the prosecution. From this, contended the learned Counsel, it is obvious that the prosecution is trying to hide something. Referring to statements of certain prosecution witnesses it was submitted that though their statements were recorded more than once but the same were suppressed without any plausible reason for doing so. The learned Counsel further submitted that the weapon of offence Ex.P-3 was not shown to the doctor concerned who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased to seek his opinion if the injuries in question on the dead body of the deceased could have been caused by that weapon. He pointed out that even during the course of his examination before the court, the knife Ex. P-3 was not shown to the doctor concerned to get his opinion in this regard. He accordingly contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to connect the knife Ex.P-3 to the injuries on the person of the deceased. According to the learned Counsel some of the injuries had tiny splits at both corners and some had two sharp corners while one injury had two blunt corners and others had one corner blunt and the other sharp. Referring to the nature of various injuries on the person of the deceased, felt the learned Counsel for the appellant, all the injuries could not have been caused by the knife Ex. P-3 which had one blunt edge and other sharp and thus the injuries caused to the deceased could not be held consistent with the knife Ex. P-3. Referring to the nature of various injuries on the person of the deceased, felt the learned Counsel for the appellant, all the injuries could not have been caused by the knife Ex. P-3 which had one blunt edge and other sharp and thus the injuries caused to the deceased could not be held consistent with the knife Ex. P-3. The learned Counsel sought to propound a theory of more than one weapon being used to cause injuries on the person of the deceased by referring to existence of another knife with one blunt edge and the other sharp in the parcel containing deceaseds boiler suit which had been sent to CFSL for examination and opinion. The knife so found with the boiler suit was marked as Ex. 2b by the CFSL. The learned Counsel pointed out that no finger prints were lifted from that knife nor the same was referred to the expert for matching with the cuts on the boiler suit as it was done in the case of knife Ex.P-3 and also the same was not shown to the doctor conducting postmortem examination on the body of the deceased to ascertain if the same could have been used as a possible weapon of offence. Addressing on alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant, the learned Counsel submitted that in terms of settled legal position an extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence which alone cannot constitute the basis for conviction without corroboration particularly in a case depending wholly on circumstantial evidence. He contended that to make an extra judicial confession acceptable as an incriminating piece of evidence the exact words used by the person making the same have to be reproduced, which was, pointed out the learned Counsel, lacking in the present case. He referred to the depositions of Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5) and Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) on extra judicial confession to demonstrate the variance in words allegedly used by the appellant while making the same. Apart from varying version of extra judicial confession finding mention in the statements of Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW5) and Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) respectively, absence of any mention of such a confession being made to Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) in the Official Log Book was also pleaded as a ground to assail the acceptability of the extra judicial confession for conviction. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW5) and Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) respectively, absence of any mention of such a confession being made to Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) in the Official Log Book was also pleaded as a ground to assail the acceptability of the extra judicial confession for conviction. Another argument was that the Investigating Officer failed to inspect Cabin No. 23 properly where the incident allegedly took place. The Investigating Officer did not detect any blood in Cabin No. 23 as the scene of crime had already been cleaned and on account of such tampering the crime could not be connected with the appellant. A decision of the Supreme Court in Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1976 CriLJ 13 was cited by learned Counsel for the appellant to emphasize the point that where the injuries are forensically of the same nature like the stab wounds in the present case and the court is required to find if all or any of the injuries could have been caused with one or more than one weapon, the prosecution as also the court are duty bound to ensure that the alleged weapon of offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness to seek his opinion if all or any of the injuries on the victim could have been caused with that weapon and failure to do so may sometimes cause aberration in the course of justice. Another decision of the Supreme Court in Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1976 CriLJ 10 was relied upon to lay stress on certain conditions as mentioned therein being satisfied before recording conviction in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence. Two more decisions of the Apex Court in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P. AIR 2006 SC 1656 and State v. Nisar AIR 2007 SC 2316 were also referred to in this respect. Law on extra judicial confession was sought to be illustrated by referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kalpana Mazumdar v. State of Orissa 2002 CriLJ 3756 . It was lastly contended that even though the prosecution case proceeded on the allegation that the appellant was a trouble maker and instigated other crew members to rebel against the officers on board on the issues of manual steering of the ship and long overdue overtime payments, the Master of the ship Sh. It was lastly contended that even though the prosecution case proceeded on the allegation that the appellant was a trouble maker and instigated other crew members to rebel against the officers on board on the issues of manual steering of the ship and long overdue overtime payments, the Master of the ship Sh. Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5), Sh. Kalyan Singh (PW-6) as also Chief Officer V.V. Murlidharan (PW-18) downplayed/underplayed the importance and material facts antecedent to the occurrence with a view to show that there was no enmity towards the appellant. It was contended that the fact of the matter is that it was on account of officers on board including Master of the ship being unhappy with and inimical to the appellant that he was falsely implicated by them in this case. It was urged that even if the previous day incident in which the appellant sustained cut injuries on his hands on being assaulted by L. Shivaraman deceased could be reckoned as motive for fatal assault on L. Shivaraman on the following day, such motive alone, in the absence of necessary links in the circumstantial evidence, could not suffice to record conviction against the appellant. The learned Counsel sought to support his argument in this regard by a decision of the Supreme Court in Subimal Sarkar v. Sachindra Nath Mandal and Ors. 2003 CriLJ 1274 . 8. Shri Y.K.Saxena, Advocate appearing for CBI, on the other hand, advanced his arguments with equal vehemence in support of impugned conviction and sentence. He contended that the appellant had a strong motive to commit the crime as if he would not have committed the same, he had the risk of being eliminated by the deceased. He referred to the previous day incident of 30th November, 1996 in which the appellant had sustained cut injuries on his hands on being assaulted by the deceased and the threat to kill him administered by the deceased subsequent to such incident. Conceding that though the Master of the ship had omitted to put the knife Ex.P-3 in a sealed cover, the same was preserved by him by keeping it in his safe custody and that there is no reason to suspect that the same was tampered with at any stage. Conceding that though the Master of the ship had omitted to put the knife Ex.P-3 in a sealed cover, the same was preserved by him by keeping it in his safe custody and that there is no reason to suspect that the same was tampered with at any stage. In view of no evidence in regard to knife Ex.P-3 being shown to the doctor concerned conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of L.Shivraman, at any stage, Shri Saxena did not join issue on the point raised by learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard. He, however, contended that in spite of knife Ex.P-3 having not been shown to the doctor concerned either at the time of postmortem examination or in the course of his deposition before the court, in the face of other evidence, which according to him is sufficient to prove the use of knife Ex.P-3 as weapon of offence, the omission on the part of investigating officer in this respect makes no material difference. Shri Saxena pointed out that the postmortem report discloses a total of 11 stab injuries on the person of the deceased and according to CFSL report Ex.PW-22/1 a corresponding number of cut marks was found on the boiler suit which deceased had been wearing at the time of fatal assault by the appellant. The CFSL report, pointed out Shri Saxena, clearly proves that cut marks on the boiler suit could have been caused by the knife in question. Shri Saxena also sought to draw support from the remark (1) at the foot of the postmortem report (Ex.PW-19/A) that the stab wounds on the neck and chest of the deceased were consistent with those produced by a single bladed weapon. It was argued that soon after committing the crime the appellant went to the bridge holding bloodstained knife Ex.P-3 in his hand, where Kalyan Singh(PW-6) was present on duty, and confessed to him about commission of the crime. The extra judicial confession so made, contended Shri Saxena, being truthful and voluntary is on its own strength sufficient to record the conviction against the appellant. A decision of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Shaik Mazhar 2001 CriLJ 3287 , was cited in support. The extra judicial confession so made, contended Shri Saxena, being truthful and voluntary is on its own strength sufficient to record the conviction against the appellant. A decision of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Shaik Mazhar 2001 CriLJ 3287 , was cited in support. Non-examination of two helmsmen on duty present at a short distance from where they could have over heard the alleged extra judicial confession made to Kalyan Singh(PW-6), argued Shri Saxena, can not be a ground to discard the testimony of Kalyan Singh(PW-6). Reliance was placed on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Dnyaneshwar Vithal Khulpe v. State of Maharashtra to sustain the argument. Countering the plea raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant against acceptability of the extra judicial confession in view of failure of Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) to reproduce the exact words uttered by the appellant while confessing to his guilt, as also variation in words allegedly used by the appellant while making the same as reflected from the statements of Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) and Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6), Shri Saxena contended, on the strength of a Supreme Court decision in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana 1990 CriLJ 2643 , that it is not an invariable rule that the evidence of a witness before whom an extra judicial confession is made, cannot be accepted if he fails to reproduce the actual words and even where the witness is able to give the substance of extra judicial confession which the court believes to be voluntary and truthful, the same can be accepted to convict a person. Apart from motive and extra judicial confession, presence of finger prints of the appellant on the knife Ex.P-3 was also referred to by Shri Saxena as another incriminating piece of evidence to justify the impugned conviction and sentence. 9. We have heard Shri G.Tushar Rao, Advocate appearing for the appellant, as also Shri Y.K.Saxena, Advocate representing CBI. We have also re-appraised the entire relevant evidence on record. .10. The incident of 1st of December, 1996 resulting into death of L.Shivraman was, according to the prosecution, a sequel to a previous day incident of 30th November, 1996 in which, as complained by the appellant, he had received some cut injuries on his hands in the course of an assault by the deceased. .10. The incident of 1st of December, 1996 resulting into death of L.Shivraman was, according to the prosecution, a sequel to a previous day incident of 30th November, 1996 in which, as complained by the appellant, he had received some cut injuries on his hands in the course of an assault by the deceased. This previous day incident is clearly established in view of statements of Shri Radha Krishan Ambady( PW-5), Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) and Serang Abdul Gani Ayanankar (PW12). After receiving first aid by Kalyan Singh(PW-6), Abdul Gani Ayanankar(PW-12) went back to his cabin along with the appellant where the deceased also arrived in a short while. According to Abdul Gani Ayanankar (PW-12), the deceased threatened the appellant there that he would kill him. There was no cross-examination of the witness on behalf of appellant on this score. The appellant himself rather in the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. confirmed the incident of stabbing of 30th November, 1996 by the deceased and the threat extended by L.Shivraman to him. It is to be noticed that prior to the said incident of 30th November, 1996 the appellant and the deceased were sharing cabin No. 25. Both were helmsmen on the board. Some simmering differences between them found ireful manifestation in the form of the said incident. That incident saw the appellant changing his cabin. He shifted to a nearby cabin No. 23 where helmsman Shri Talgharkar became his new cabin-mate. Getting worked up due to previous day happening was a natural reaction. This was compounded by haunting fear to his life in the face of threat in that regard extended by the deceased. Clearly thus, a motive on the part of the appellant to act in reprisal as also to ward off apprehended danger to his life did exist. Accordingly, learned trial courts finding that motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime is established cannot be held unfounded and we maintain the same. 11. Clearly thus, a motive on the part of the appellant to act in reprisal as also to ward off apprehended danger to his life did exist. Accordingly, learned trial courts finding that motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime is established cannot be held unfounded and we maintain the same. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant was no doubt justified in contending, as a proposition of law, that motive alone in the absence of necessary links in the circumstantial evidence could not provide a basis for conviction but in the context of present case it is to be kept in view that the finding of conviction against the appellant is not founded on the motive alone as would be evident from the impugned judgment. 12. Subimal Sarkars case(supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant was one where apart from establishing motive and the fact that the deceased died of strangulation, the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, which could have established that in all probability it were only the accused persons therein who could have committed the crime. Apart from the accused persons, there were others also staying in the same house and the prosecution was found lacking in producing material to exclude such other persons as the ones who could not have been a party to the crime. Being distinguishable on facts, Subimal Sarkars case(supra) is of no avail to the appellant. .13. According to prosecution case, though the appellant had allegedly made extra judicial confession to Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5), as also before Wai Mu Lam(PW-20), a senior inspector of Hongkong Police, the learned trial court did not accept the same to record the finding of conviction against the appellant. It was the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) alone which was accepted as a piece of incriminating evidence to find the appellant guilty of committing murder of L.Shivraman. Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) affirmed that on 1st December, 1996 when he was present on the bridge of the ship in connection with his duty the appellant came to the bridge at about 1510 hours and told him that he had killed Shivraman. According to him, the appellant stated in Hindi also that , "SHIVRAMAN KO KHALAS KIYA". Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) affirmed that on 1st December, 1996 when he was present on the bridge of the ship in connection with his duty the appellant came to the bridge at about 1510 hours and told him that he had killed Shivraman. According to him, the appellant stated in Hindi also that , "SHIVRAMAN KO KHALAS KIYA". Shri Kalyan Singh(PW- .6) further affirms that appellant had a bloodstained knife in his hand and his hands were smeared in blood. On being asked to hand over that knife, the appellant though initially refused but later gave it to Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6). The fact that after the incident the appellant was noticed present on the bridge near Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) is proved in terms of statements of Shri Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5) and Murlidhar (PW-18) also. Even the appellant himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admits his presence on the bridge though he added that he had gone there to inform Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) that the deceased was found lying in an injured condition. There is, thus, no manner of doubt in finding that the appellant was, soon after the incident, found present at the bridge near Kalyan Singh(PW-6). Statement of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in regard to confessional statement made to him by the appellant remains unshaken in spite of extensive cross-examination. Going by the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant, he had a friendly relationship with Kalyan Singh(PW-6) and it was but natural on his part to approach Kalyan Singh(PW-6) to confide in him as to what he had done. Learned Counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis on the plea of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) failing to reproduce the exact words uttered to him by the appellant while making alleged confession. He referred to PW-6 Kalyan Singhs statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW-6/DA where the appellant is stated to have told him, (KHALAS KAR DIYA). The learned Counsel pointed out that in his deposition before the Court Kalyan Singh(PW-6) sought to improve upon his said statement Ex.PW-6/DA when he added the name of Shivraman before the words "KHALAS KAR DIYA". It is, however, noticed that an undue thrust is being applied to the omission on the part of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in mentioning the name of Shivraman with the words "KHALAS KAR DIYA". It is, however, noticed that an undue thrust is being applied to the omission on the part of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in mentioning the name of Shivraman with the words "KHALAS KAR DIYA". One cannot lose sight of the fact that according to Kalyan Singh(Pw-6), on reaching the bridge of the ship, the appellant had first told him that he had killed Shivraman and then repeated the same in Hindi also by uttering, "KHALAS KAR DIYA". The statement so made in Hindi was only in continuation to the confession initially made by him wherein he had specifically named Shivraman. Thus, the words "KHALAS KAR DIYA" uttered by the appellant in Hindi are to be read in the context of his initial confession naming Shivraman. No real variance in the content of confession initially made and the one repeated in Hindi is thus brought out. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised another argument questioning the acceptability of extra judicial confession to Kalyan Singh(Pw-6) by referring to the words attributed to the appellant by Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) in his deposition. As noticed earlier, the testimony of Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) in regard to extra judicial confession was not accepted by the learned trial court for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment. In a situation where the very existence of any such subsequent confessional statement being made to Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) was found doubtful it is not open to refer to such a confessional statement for the purpose of bringing out a contradiction to discredit the statement of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) as aforementioned. .15. Yet another argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant was that in the absence of reproduction of exact words of confessional statement before Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in the official log book dated 2.12.1996 relating to the incident(Ex.PW-5/D), no credence could be attached to the confession attributed to the appellant as deposed by Kalyan Singh(PW-6). The entry Ex.PW-5/D in the official log book was made by Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) on 2nd December, 1996. He was not present at the bridge when the appellant had approached Kalyan Singh(PW-6) and made confessional statement before him. Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5), thus, could not be expected to be aware of the exact words uttered by the appellant before Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) while making his confessional statement. He was not present at the bridge when the appellant had approached Kalyan Singh(PW-6) and made confessional statement before him. Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5), thus, could not be expected to be aware of the exact words uttered by the appellant before Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) while making his confessional statement. The omission to mention the exact words in the log book entry dated 2.12.1996 vide Ex.PW-5/D) in the circumstances cannot make the testimony of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in regard to confession by the appellant uncreditworthy. The log book entry(Ex.PW-5/D) does carry a mention that the information regarding commission of the murder of Shivraman by the appellant was given over phone by Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) from which it is evident that Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) had, before passing on the information to the said effect, come to know that it was the appellant who had committed the crime. Noticeably, Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6), being stationed at the bridge of the ship when the incident had taken place at cabin No. 23, could not have known the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. The presence of the appellant at the bridge near Kalyan Singh(PW-6) before Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) and Mulrlidharan(PW-20) reached there and handing over of bloodstained knife collected from the appellant by Kalyan Singh(PW-6) lend sufficient corroboration to the appellant having approached Kalyan Singh(PW-6) at the bridge and making confessional statement to him, as deposed by Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6). The stand of the appellant that Shri Kalyan Singh (PW-6) had joined hands with Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5) and others on board being inimical to him is difficult to accept, given the nature of friendly relationship he enjoyed with Kalyan Singh(PW-6). The learned trial court would, thus, appear to have committed no error in reaching the conclusion that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant, as deposed in the court, was voluntary and a truthful one and could, thus, constitute an incriminating piece of evidence to find his culpability in the commission of the crime. .16. Non-examination of two seamen, namely, Baria and Thalgharkar, who were manually steering the ship at the relevant time when the appellant made his confessional statement before Kalyan Singh(PW-6) cannot be a ground to discard an otherwise unimpeached testimony of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in regard to confession made to him by the appellant. .16. Non-examination of two seamen, namely, Baria and Thalgharkar, who were manually steering the ship at the relevant time when the appellant made his confessional statement before Kalyan Singh(PW-6) cannot be a ground to discard an otherwise unimpeached testimony of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) in regard to confession made to him by the appellant. Acceptance of testimony of a particular witness in regard to an extra judicial confession is not dependent on corroboration by other witnesses, if otherwise creditworthy. Clearly, the extra judicial confession was made by the appellant to Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) only and according to Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6), the appellant had confessed commission of crime just in a few words. Even though the evidence on record is to the effect that the two helmsmen, namely, Baria and Talgharkar being present at a short distance could have overheard what the appellant would have said before Kalyan Singh(PW-6), it does not necessarily follow, as observed by the learned trial court and rightly so, that both the said seamen were attentive enough to catch the words uttered by the appellant before Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6). Moreover, at least helmsman Talgharkar was the one who had joined hands with the appellant to incite other crew members on board to disobey the commands of the Master of the ship unless their demands in regard to repair of auto pilot system and long over due over-time payment were met. The appellant and Talgharkar thus shared a comradely bond and in such a situation looking for a support from Talgharkar to PW Kalyan Singhs deposition on extra judicial confession by the appellant would be expecting too much from him. 17. All the four seamen on board, including the deceased, according to the statement of Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5), had adopted a rebellious posture on being asked to do manual steering so long as the auto pilot system was not got repaired. The other seaman Baria, apart from Talgharkar was also a part of that crew. It was only on a direction from their trade union that the said seamen had resumed their duty to steer the ship manually. They would, however, appear to have continued with their grievance against the officers on board, including Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5), the Master of the ship. It was only on a direction from their trade union that the said seamen had resumed their duty to steer the ship manually. They would, however, appear to have continued with their grievance against the officers on board, including Shri Radha Krishan Ambady(PW-5), the Master of the ship. It is an altogether different proposition that the appellant and the deceased had some kind of personal differences between them which initially led to previous day happening and later to the one in which Shivraman lost his life. Keeping the said background facts in view, reluctance on the part of either of the two seamen, namely Baria and Talgharkar, to corroborate the testimony of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) on confessional statement by the appellant could not be viewed as something unexpected. .18. The blood stains on the knife Ex.PW-3 on examination by serological division of CFSL were found to be of human origin of O group vide Ex.PW-17/A. The deceased Shivraman had the same blood group which is evident vide Ex.PW-17/A from the blood group which was noticed on the boiler suit Ex.2a that the deceased was wearing at the time of fatal assault on his person. The knife Ex.P-3 on being received at CFSL vide Ex.PW-21/1 was noted to bear bloodstains at places. The report(Ex.PW-15/A) from finger print division of CFSL makes it evident that the knife Ex.P-3 apart from bearing bloodstains at other places also had a visible print which appeared to be of blood on its handle as well. It was that print on the handle of knife Ex.P-3 marked as Q-1 which was got photographed for comparison with the specimen finger prints of the appellant. The visible print Mark Q-1 on the handle of the knife Ex.P-3 was opined to be identical with the specimen right middle fingerprint of the appellant. Matching ridge characteristics were found in their relevant positions in these prints. The visible print Mark Q-1 on the handle of the knife Ex.P-3 was opined to be identical with the specimen right middle fingerprint of the appellant. Matching ridge characteristics were found in their relevant positions in these prints. The report(Ex.PW-15/A) thus, on one hand proves the presence of appellants finger print on the handle of the knife Ex.P-3 on the other, it also establishes that the visible print lifted from the handle of the knife Ex.P-3 was noted to be of blood which assumes added significance as the same corroborates the statement of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) on extra judicial confession where he affirmed that at the time the appellant had come to him on the bridge he was holding a bloodstained knife and his hands were smeared in blood. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant that he was forced to hold the knife Ex.P-3 after being tied at the bridge would appear to lack conviction; firstly, had it been so, there could be no occasion for a visible print of blood being detected on the handle of the knife Ex.P-3 and, secondly, in view of clear affirmation of Kalyan Singh(PW-6) that when the appellant had approached him at the bridge, he had arrived there carrying bloodstained knife in his hand. Having found that extra judicial confession before Kalyan Singh(PW-6) by the appellant is a creditworthy piece of incriminating evidence, there is no scope for a plea of fingerprints of the appellant being forcibly obtained at a subsequent stage. The presence of fingerprints of the appellant on the knife Ex.P-3 apart from being an independent piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant, also lends corroboration to the testimony of Shri Kalyan Singh(PW-6) on extra judicial confession. 19. Non-sealing of knife Ex.P-3 on its alleged seizure from the appellant, was made a point of argument to sustain the plea that in the circumstances tampering with the knife Ex.P-3 before the same was handed over to the Hongkong Police or its eventual deposit with the CFSL, could not be ruled out. Such an argument was advanced to support the stand that the knife Ex.P-3 was actually planted on the appellant by forcing him to hold the same with a view to obtain his fingerprints thereon. Such an argument was advanced to support the stand that the knife Ex.P-3 was actually planted on the appellant by forcing him to hold the same with a view to obtain his fingerprints thereon. The purpose of placing an incriminating article in a sealed cover after its recovery is to exclude and minimise the possibility of tampering therewith at any later stage. This, however, does not imply that in all such cases where the seized article is not placed in a sealed cover tampering therewith is to be readily inferred. It depends on facts of an individual case and available evidence on record to reach a finding on possibility of an article being tampered with at any subsequent stage. In the present case, it is notable that even if the knife Ex.P-3 would have been placed in a sealed cover after seizure thereof, it was really not going to make any material difference as the seal would have continued to remain available to Shri Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5), Master of the ship, from 1st December, 1996 to 5th December, 1996 and the knife Ex.P-3 could have very well been re-sealed with the same seal if a tampering therewith, as pleaded on behalf of the appellant, was to be done. Shri Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5) testified that after seizure of the knife Ex.P-3 the same was kept by him in his safe custody. Shri Radha Krishan Ambady (PW-5) was the Master of the ship and a responsible officer. His statement that the knife Ex.P-3 after its seizure continued to be in his safe custody cannot be disbelieved without adequate reason therefor. .20. Presence of bloodstains on the clothes of a person tried on the charge of murder is no doubt an important incriminating circumstance to connect him with the commission of crime. In the present case, it is noticed that though the appellant had allegedly gone to the bridge of the ship holding in his blood smeared hand the bloodstained knife Ex.P-3 neither Kalyan Singh(PW-6), nor any other prosecution witness who reached the bridge later in point of time, noticed any bloodstain on appellants clothes which he was wearing at the relevant time. Such clothes were not seized and taken into possession either by Shri Radha Krishan Ambady, PW-5, or Hongkong Police. Such clothes were not seized and taken into possession either by Shri Radha Krishan Ambady, PW-5, or Hongkong Police. The appellant, in reply to question No. 34 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., told that he had continued to wear the same very clothes since 30th November, 1996 when he had sustained injuries at the hands of the deceased and did not change the same until handing over of his custody to the Hongkong Police. According to him, it was Hongkong Police who got his clothes changed in the presence of Shri V.V.Murlidharan(PW-18). He also stated that there were no bloodstains on his clothes when the same were got changed by the Hongkong Police. Since the clothes which the appellant was wearing at the relevant time were not taken into possession to prove the existence of bloodstains, if any, thereon and as none of the witnesses testifies about presence of bloodstains on his clothes, the conclusion that follows is that there were no bloodstains on his clothes when the appellant approached Kalyan Singh (PW-6) at the bridge to confess his guilt. This fact could have been of considerable significance in adjudging the culpability of the appellant had the effect of the same been not offset by the strong incriminating evidence which constitute the basis for convicting the appellant. Nothing turns on absence of blood between the scene of crime and the bridge in view of the fact that the stabbing took place at cabin No. 23 where the body of the deceased with injuries was found lying in a pool of blood. The clothes of the appellant, as noticed earlier, were not soaked in deceaseds blood nor there is any evidence of his feet or footwear, if any, the appellant was wearing, having got smeared in deceaseds blood before his proceeding to the bridge and in such circumstances, no blood could be expected to have fallen down in the alleyway from the scene of the crime to the bridge. .21. The argument that the failure on the part of the investigating agency to show the knife Ex.P-3, to the doctor concerned, who had conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. .21. The argument that the failure on the part of the investigating agency to show the knife Ex.P-3, to the doctor concerned, who had conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. to seek his opinion if all or any of the injuries on the victims body could have been caused with that weapon, though a valid one, the omission in this regard on the part of investigating officer in the present case bears no serious impact on prosecution case in view of other incriminating evidence connecting the knife Ex.P-3 with the commission of the crime. Reliance on Kartareys case(supra) does not appear to be quite appropriate. That was a case where six persons were tried and sentenced to death under Sections 302/149 IPC for commission of murder of one of their co-villagers. On appeal, the High Court acquitted three convicts who had allegedly held the deceased while their three co-convicts assaulted the deceased with a CHHURA and KATARS. The appellant, Kartarey, allegedly assaulted the deceased with a CHHURA and his co-convicts Baljit and Sitaram with KATARS. On postmortem examination, 16 stab wounds were found on the dead body and in the opinion of the doctor the death was due to injuries to the vital organs inflicted with a sharp edged weapon like a knife or a KATAR. The argument raised on behalf of co-convicts Baljit and Sitaram was that they were not present at the time of occurrence and that all the stab wounds found on the body of the deceased might have been inflicted with a CHHURA by one person only. It was contented that the CHHURA was not shown to the medical witness nor was his opinion specifically sought as to whether all or any of the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been caused with that CHHURA only. It was contented that the CHHURA was not shown to the medical witness nor was his opinion specifically sought as to whether all or any of the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been caused with that CHHURA only. Dealing with the argument so advanced, the Supreme Court no doubt emphasized the importance of eliciting the opinion, in regard to the weapon of offence, of the medical witness who had examined the injuries on the body of the victim, particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, e.g., stab wounds, proceeded to find that even without the opinion of the doctor concerned in regard to the nature of weapon of offence which could have caused injuries on the body of the deceased, the conviction of Baljit and Sitaram, apart from that of Kartarey, was justified. This finding was arrived at noticing that the 16 stab wounds, based on their length and breadth, fell into three groups; the wounds in each group being of almost identical length and breadth. It was held that the dimension wise classification of the injuries into three groups pointed with reasonable certainty to the conclusion that the injuries falling in three respective groups were caused by three different weapons. The ratio of decision in Kartareys case(supra) does not rule that the absence of opinion of medical witness in regard to weapon of offence though of importance, would cause a fatal impact on prosecution case, even where there is clinching evidence sufficient to connect the use of weapon of offence to the crime committed. The knife Ex.P-3 vide CFSL report Ex.PW-22/1 has a metallic blade with one edge sharp and another edge blunt. Together with the knife Ex.P-3 a dark blue coloured boiler suit bearing 11 cut marks marked as Q-1 to Q-11, which the deceased was wearing at the time of being fatally assaulted, was also examined at CFSL vide Ex.PW-22/1. All cut marks were on the front left upper side near the pocket, two cut marks on the left hand side collar, two cut marks on the left shoulder and two cut marks near the left armpit. All cut marks were on the front left upper side near the pocket, two cut marks on the left hand side collar, two cut marks on the left shoulder and two cut marks near the left armpit. All the cut marks Q-1 to Q-11 on the boiler suit Ex.2b were opined to have been caused by a weapon having one edge sharp and the other edge blunt and the result of examination states that these marks could have been caused by the knife Ex.P-3. The postmortem report, Ex.PW-19/A, discloses seven stab wounds on the neck and four stab wounds on the chest of the deceased. Eleven cut marks on the boiler suit vide Ex.PW-22/1 substantially correspond to the stab injuries finding mention in the postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A. At the foot of the postmortem report, Ex.PW-19/A under the head "REMARKS", the doctor concerned has opined; "1. the stab wounds on the neck and the chest were consistent with those produced by a single blade weapon". The knife, Ex.P-3, as noted by CFSL in its report, Ex.PW-22/1, is a single bladed/edged weapon. This apart, seizure of knife, Ex.P-3, soon after the incident when the appellant confessed to his guilt before Kalyan Singh(PW-6) and presence of his finger print thereon vide CFSL report, Ex.PW-15/A and bloodstains matching blood group O of the deceased clearly establish that the same was the one which the appellant used in committing the murder of the deceased. 22. Referring to nature of certain external injuries noticed on the body of deceased in the course of postmortem examination, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the same were not consistent with the knife Ex.P-3 and that use of some other weapon of offence could not be ruled out. He pointed out that the postmortem report(Ex.PW-19/A) shows that there were certain injuries which had tiny splits at both corners, some had two sharp corners, one injury had two blunt corners and others were having one corner blunt and the other sharp. All these injuries, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, could not have been caused by knife Ex.P-3. The postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A discloses following stab wounds on external examination: Stab wound #(1) just below left angle of jaw. It was 2.1 cm long and showed tiny splits at both corners. Stab wound #(2) just below left jaw, at 6 cm to the left of the mi-line. The postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A discloses following stab wounds on external examination: Stab wound #(1) just below left angle of jaw. It was 2.1 cm long and showed tiny splits at both corners. Stab wound #(2) just below left jaw, at 6 cm to the left of the mi-line. It was 2.2 cm long and showed tiny splits at both corners. Stab wound #(3) at middle neck, at the left of the Adams apple, 3.5 cm to the left mid-line. It was 2.0 cm long and showed a blunt right upper corner and a sharp left lower corner. Stab wound #(4) at middle neck just below and to the left of the Adams apple. It was 1.5 cm long, with a blunt right upper corner and a sharp left lower corner. Stab wound #(5) at lower neck, 8 cm below the Adams apple at the mid-line. It was 2.2 cm long and showed a notch at the middle. There was a 2.4 cm long superficial cut running downwards from the notch. Stab wound #(6) at lower neck. 1 cm above and 3.5 cm. To the left of stab wound #(5). It was 2.0 cm long and showed two sharp corners. Stab wound (#7) at the left side of lower neck, at a level 4 cm below the Adams apple, 6 cm to the left of mid-line. It was 2.0 cm long and showed a blunt upper corner and a sharp lower corner. Stab wound #(8) at left upper chest, at a level 11 cm above the nipples, 7 cm to the left of the mid-line. It was 1.6 cm long and showed a blunt right corner and a sharp left corner. Stab wound #(9) 1 cm below and 2 cm to the left of stab wound #(8). It was 1.7 cm long and showed a blunt right corner and a sharp left corner. Stab wound #(10) at left upper chest, at a level 9 cm above the nipples, and 1.5 cm to the left of mid-line. It was 1.8 cm long and showed two blunt corners. Stab wound #(11) at central chest, at a level 2.5 cm above the nipples, and 2 cm to the left of mid-line. It was 1.8 cm long. The upper corner was blunt. The lower corner was sharp and was in continuation with a superficial cut (a tail) 0.8 cm long. 23. Stab wound #(11) at central chest, at a level 2.5 cm above the nipples, and 2 cm to the left of mid-line. It was 1.8 cm long. The upper corner was blunt. The lower corner was sharp and was in continuation with a superficial cut (a tail) 0.8 cm long. 23. Apart from the bloodstained knife Ex.P-3 and certain other items, as mentioned in the letter(Ex.PW-21/2) of the investigating officer, one sealed cardboard parcel `containing a blue coloured blood soaked boiler suit worn by deceased at the time of incident marked as `B was also sent to CFSL for examination and opinion. Such sealed cardboard box was, on opening, found to contain two exhibits 2a and 2b vide CFSL report Ex.PW-22/1. Ex.2a was the dark blue coloured boiler suit and Ex.2b was a metallic blade fitted in a wooden handle like a knife. The length of the metallic blade is about 5.5 centimeters with one edge sharp and another blunt having a round tip at one end. None of the prosecution witnesses, including the investigating officer, stated anything as to how and wherefrom the said knife Ex.2b was recovered and kept with the boiler suit in the same cardboard box. This knife Ex.2b, like knife Ex.P-3, also bore human bloodstains matching `O group of the deceased. Existence of knife Ex.2b was made a basis, by learned Counsel for the appellant, to argue that the same could have been used to cause stab wounds on the neck and chest of the deceased, as noted in the postmortem report(Ex.PW-19/A). Countering the argument related to nature of weapon of offence used in commission of the crime, as raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for CBI contended that even though the prosecution witnesses kept silent as to how the knife Ex.2b came to be sealed in the cardboard box containing the boiler suit (Ex.2a), in view of sufficient evidence on record proving beyond doubt commission of the crime by the appellant with the knife Ex.P-3, there is no real basis to support the contention that knife Ex.2b could also be a possible weapon of offence. 24. No sketch of the knife Ex.P-3 and knife Ex.2b indicating length and breadth of their blade being available on record, a physical inspection thereof was necessitated. 24. No sketch of the knife Ex.P-3 and knife Ex.2b indicating length and breadth of their blade being available on record, a physical inspection thereof was necessitated. On measurement, tapering blade of the knife Ex.P-3 was found to be about 8.5 cm in length and 2 cm in width at handle end. It has a gradual diminishing width to the distal end. The knife Ex.2b has, on the other hand, a blade of about 6.5 cm in length and about 1.3 cm. in width. The knife Ex.P-3 and the knife Ex.2b both have one edge sharp and the other edge blunt. However, while knife Ex.P-3 has a pointed tip, the tip of knife Ex.2-b is a rounded and blunt one. 25. The theory of more than one weapon being used in the commission of the crime, as propounded by learned Counsel for the appellant, as noticed earlier, emanates from the nature of certain injuries on the body of the deceased and existence of knife Ex.2b with bloodstains thereon matching the blood group of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that unlike knife Ex.P-3 the knife Ex.2b was not subjected to examination to find the presence of finger prints, if any, on its handle. The same was also not shown to Dr.Lal Sai Chak(PW-19), who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased to seek his opinion if the same could have been the possible weapon of offence, nor the opinion of the expert witness Shri C.K.Jain(PW-22) was sought in respect thereto if the cuts on the boiler suit could have been caused by that knife. 26. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to injuries (1),(5),(8) and (10), in particular, vide Ex.PW-19/A to supply emphasis to his contention that given the nature of the said injuries, the same could not have been caused by one and the same weapon like knife Ex.P-3. The learned Counsel appeared to have in the back of his mind that a stab wound caused by a single edged knife could not have resulted into tiny splits or sharp corners at both ends as found in stab wounds (1) and (6) vide Ex.PW-19/A. Such an argument is, however, difficult to find acceptability. Though the ends of the stab wound may give a clue as to whether knife is single or double edged, but this distinction is not always so easy to find. Though the ends of the stab wound may give a clue as to whether knife is single or double edged, but this distinction is not always so easy to find. Even where a single edged knife is used to cause stab wound, both ends of the wound may appear to be sharply cut due to tear of the skin at the blunt edge.(See HWV Cox Medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology (7th Edition) page 399). If a single edged weapon is used the surface wound will be wedge shaped with one angle of the wound sharp and the other angle squared off. The blunt end of the wound may have small splits in the skin called fishtailing. Some stab wounds caused by a single edged weapon have bilateral pointed ends. In some single edged knives, there is a small, blunt portion of knife called ricasso, as in the knife Ex. P3, between the cutting edge of the knife and the handle and when the full length of such knives enters the body up to the handle, both ends of the wound will be blunt.(See Lyons Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (11th Edition) page 455) It would be, thus, evident that stab injuries caused by a single edged weapon may result into both ends of the wound being sharply cut, as noticed in stab would (1) and (6), as also both ends of the wound being blunt as in injury (10) vide Ex.PW-19/A. Thus, the nature of injuries, as pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant, would not appear to support the contention that more than one weapon was used in commission of the crime. As far as the plea regarding knife Ex.2b being a possible weapon of offence is concerned, the same is unacceptable for more than one reason. Stab wounds(punctured wounds) are produced, says Lyons Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (11th Edition) page 455, by a pointed instrument, in which the depth of penetration into the body is greater than the length of the wound on the skin. The tip end of the knife Ex.2b is found to be rounded and blunt and not a pointed one. Stab wounds(punctured wounds) are produced, says Lyons Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (11th Edition) page 455, by a pointed instrument, in which the depth of penetration into the body is greater than the length of the wound on the skin. The tip end of the knife Ex.2b is found to be rounded and blunt and not a pointed one. The same, thus, could not have been the weapon which could have produced the kind of stab wounds noticed on the body of the deceased vide postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A. The other reason which works to rule out the said knife being possible weapon of offence is the dimension of the stab wounds caused on the body of deceased. The stab wounds found on the neck and chest of the deceased vide Ex.PW-19/A with varying length range from 1.5 cm to 2.2 cm. According to Lyons Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (11th Edition) page 455, the length of stab wounds is slightly shorter than the width of the weapon which is partly due to the elasticity of the skin and partly on account of contraction or postmortem shortening of the underlying muscles. HWV Cox Medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology (7th Edition) page 399 says: the same knife may cause wounds of very different sizes. If a knife is driven in vertically and lifted out vertically then the wound will exactly correspond with the width of the blade at the depth to which it entered(a tapered blade will have a different width according to the amount of blade that has entered the body). However, this statement must be modified by the fact that elastic skin and subcutaneous tissues tend to contract and, like the bullet hole, the final aperture may be slightly smaller than the object which caused it. Quite often, a knife which is stabbed into the body may be withdrawn at a different angle, thus appreciably widening the wound, sometimes to twice the original width of the blade- 27. Jhala and Raju Medical Jurisprudence (5th Edition) page35 also says that, the length of the stab wounds corresponds to the breadth of the blade within the limits of elasticity of skin. The length of the stab wounds finding mention in the postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A appear to be closely corresponding to the width of the tapering blade of the knife Ex.P-3. Jhala and Raju Medical Jurisprudence (5th Edition) page35 also says that, the length of the stab wounds corresponds to the breadth of the blade within the limits of elasticity of skin. The length of the stab wounds finding mention in the postmortem report Ex.PW-19/A appear to be closely corresponding to the width of the tapering blade of the knife Ex.P-3. Given the shape of blade of knife Ex.2b with a rounded and blunt tip end and the width of its blade, the same could not have resulted into the nature of stab wounds as found on the body of the deceased vide Ex.PW-19/A. Thus, mere existence of the knife Ex.2b cannot lead to find the same to be a possible weapon of offence. In the circumstances, all other points raised by learned Counsel for the appellant in relation to the knife Ex.2b would be rendered inconsequential. 28. Keeping in view the incriminating evidence available on record proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, we find no reason to arrive at a finding different from the one recorded by the learned trial court in regard to the complicity of the appellant in committing the murder of L. Shivaraman on board. Hence, the impugned conviction and sentence are maintained and the appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit.