JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Appellant along with three others faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 I.P.C in S.C No. 21/2 of 2005. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir, convicted the Appellant alone under the said Sections & sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year. The said order of conviction & sentence is assailed in this Criminal Appeal. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.9.2004 the brother of the informant Hafiz Khan had gone to upper hamlet of the village with one Danial Kumar & did not return till night. On the next day morning while inquiring about his brother, the informant came to know that his brother Hafiz is lying dead in front of the house of one Rajendra Patra. On inquiry he came to know that Hemanta Bag, Hrusikesh Bag, Kalpana Bag, Bhagabana Bag and Ors. have killed his brother by means of deadly weapons & after committing the murder they have absconded from the village. According to the informant. about 15 days prior to the occurrence, Hemanta Bag had some altercation with Bimbadhar Patra, which was pacified by Hafiz & being aggrieved Hemanta had threatened to kill him & in fact chased him holding a sword, but fortunately Hafiz escaped. Though the said dispute was compromised but then the accused persons had a grudge against Hafiz. He submitted a written report at Sadar Police Station, Balangir on 27.9.2004. On the basis of said report Balangir Sadar P.S Case No. 147 (21) of 2004 was registered, which was subsequently converted to G.R Case No. 545 of 2004. The Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body, sent it for postmortem, seized blood stained earth, chapal & cycle from the spot & found that all the accused persons had absconded. On 29.9.2004 he apprehended the accused Hemanta. While in police custody Hemanta made a confession admitting to have killed Hafiz with the help of his brothers & also disclosed that he had concealed the sword i.e. the weapon of offence in a ditch of a farmhouse. He also led the police to the spot, brought the sword from the ditch & handed over the same to the Investigating Officer in presence of witnesses. He also led the police to the spot, brought the sword from the ditch & handed over the same to the Investigating Officer in presence of witnesses. While the investigation was under progress the other accused persons surrendered in Court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted & the Learned S.D.J.M after being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out took, cognizance of offences & committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The plea of the defence was of complete denial. According to them they have been falsely implicated in the case out of previous enmity. In order to establish the case, the prosecution got examined 14 witnesses. P.W. 1 was the father of the deceased, P.W. 2 was the informant & brother of the deceased, P.W. 4 was a witness to leading to discovery, P. Ws.3, 5, 6, 7, 9 & 10 are independent post occurrence witnesses. P.W. 8 was the doctor who conducted post mortem, P.W. 11 was the wife of the deceased, P. Ws.12 & 13 were seizure witnesses & P.W. 14 was the Investigating Officer. The defence also got two witnesses examined. D.W.1 was an independent witness & D.W.2 was the accused-Hemanta. 4. Miss D. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there were a number of discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses in Court vis-a-vis the statements recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. She further submitted that no blood was found on the sword, which was recovered from an open place where other people had access & that on the basis of same evidence, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge having acquitted the other three accused persons, who were similarly placed as that of the Appellant, has acted illegally in convicting the Appellant. According to Miss D. Mohapatra, absconding from the village cannot be taken as a ground for conviction, more so because in the present case, as would be evident from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the male members of the entire village had absconded out of fear. Added to that, she submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the intention or motive of the accused persons & as such, the entire prosecution case should be disbelieved & the recovery made on the basis of statement made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be a sole basis for conviction. 5. Added to that, she submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the intention or motive of the accused persons & as such, the entire prosecution case should be disbelieved & the recovery made on the basis of statement made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be a sole basis for conviction. 5. In retardation Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in extenso & the conclusions arrived at arid the reasonings given are in consonance with the oral & documentary evidence. No error apparent on the face of record could be pointed out with regard to the reasonings given & the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused by adducing cogent & reliable evidence, the order of conviction may not be interfered with. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length & went through the evidence meticulously. Admittedly there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence & the entire prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence. So far as circumstances are concerned, the prosecution only relied upon the statements made by P.S. to the effect that previous enmity existed between the accused & deceased. It is also very clear that in past the accused chased Hafiz (deceased) with an open sword & tried to murder him, but then fortunately he escaped Perusal of the medical evidence as well as the postmortem report clearly reveals that death of Hafiz was homicidal in nature. P.W. 8 the doctor had deposed that the injuries sustained by Hafiz on the vital part of his body were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of event. On being questioned he had also given opinion that injuries could have been caused by the sword (M.O.I). Nothing could be elicited from the mouth of P.W. 8 to demolish his statement. 7. On being questioned he had also given opinion that injuries could have been caused by the sword (M.O.I). Nothing could be elicited from the mouth of P.W. 8 to demolish his statement. 7. To base a conviction on the circumstantial evidence, the following four points have to be established:- i) the circumstances from which the conclusion is done should be fully proved: ii) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; iii) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis with guilt & inconsistent with innocence; iv) circumstances should be a certainty excluding the possibility of guilty by any person other than that of the accused.\ The evidence of P. Ws.1 & 2, the father & brother of the deceased respectively & that of P. Ws.4 & 10 who were independent witnesses reveal that few days prior to the incident there was a dispute & accused Hemanta being enraged chased the deceased with a sword & tried to kill him. This part of evidence has not been shattered by cross examination. 8. The most vital evidence against the Appellant is the confession made by him & disclose of the place where the weapon of offence was hidden. The said statement was made in presence of independent witnesses & it appears that the accused led the police party & witnesses to the place where he had kept the sword & produced the same which was marked as M.O.I. 9. According to Miss. D. Mohapatra, the evidence of the witnesses would reveal that there was no bloodstain on the sword but then this fact does not appear to be correct as the Serology test report (Ext 17) clearly reveals that on examination human blood was found on the sword. That apart, blood was also found on the wearing apparels of the accused. 10. In the case of Prafulla ' Mangulu Pradhan v. State of Orissa reported in 2002 (23) OCR 45 it has been clearly held that the report of the Chemical Examiner or Asst Chemical Examiner and Ors. can be admitted into evidence without formal proof. To substantiate the submission that on the same set of evidence if some of the accused persons were acquitted, others should not be convicted, Miss. Mohapatra relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi Vs. can be admitted into evidence without formal proof. To substantiate the submission that on the same set of evidence if some of the accused persons were acquitted, others should not be convicted, Miss. Mohapatra relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi Vs. State of Maharashtra, But then the facts of the said case are different In that case the deceased was found in the company of two accused before his disappearance. The Supreme Court held that as one of the accused has been acquitted on the same set of evidence, other cannot be convicted. This is not a case where the last scene theory has been applied. The prosecution in the case at hand by adducing cogent evidence of more than one witnesses, i.e., P. Ws.1, 2,4 & 10 established the fact that the accused had a previous enmity with the deceased & in past he had also chased him with a sword. The evidence of such witnesses, who are relatives, cannot be disbelieved as the same are cogent & reliable. 11. The most important evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime is the statement made by him while in custody in presence of independent witnesses. The said statement/confession has been recorded & signed by the accused & marked as Ext. 5. That apart while confessing the crime, the accused had also disclosed the place where he had concealed the sword (M.O.I) & led the police as well as witnesses to the spot & brought out the sword from the ditch. P.W. 4 & the Investigating Officer-P.W.14 are the witnesses to the said occurrence. Ext. 5, as stated earlier, is the statement. An argument is advanced to the effect that the place where the sword (M.O.I) was recovered is an open place, but then it appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 & the Investigating Officer that the place was never accessible to all since it is situated in an isolated farm house. It appears that unless the accused had given information about the location & concealment, it would have been impossible for the police to trace out the sword (M.O.I) from Inside the ditch where it was concealed. The accused being the author of concealment, his statement leading to discovery is acceptable u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. It appears that unless the accused had given information about the location & concealment, it would have been impossible for the police to trace out the sword (M.O.I) from Inside the ditch where it was concealed. The accused being the author of concealment, his statement leading to discovery is acceptable u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. In the case of 1983 (7) ACR 222 (SC) the Supreme Court observed that discovery u/s 27 is as regards authorship of concealment. The conduct & concealment are incriminating circumstances & the recovery of concealed weapon becomes relevant & admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. That apart, the sword recovered was sent for chemical examination & the report reveals that it contained stains of human blood. 12. On an analysis of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the conclusions arrived at by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir, that the Appellant had committed the murder, suffers from no infirmity. It is pertinent to mention here that except the Appellant no other accused person had made any confession before the police nor the weapon of offence was recovered at their instance. There were also no materials to reveal that others had enmity with the deceased. Thus, the case of the Appellant is different than other accused person who have been rightly acquitted. The scenario of facts reveals that on the date of occurrence all of a sudden the Appellant found Hafiz in his locality. On seeing him in a spit of anger, without any premeditation to fulfill his old grudge the Appellant assaulted Hafiz with a sword thereby causing fatal injury. 13. In view of the discussions made above while confirming the findings of the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Appellant had caused the death of Hafiz & the same was homicidal in nature, in absence of proof with regard to any motive or intention, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the Appellant should be convicted u/s 304 Part-II of I.P.C instead of Section 302 of I.P.C. It appears that the accused-Appellant is in custody all through. This Court, therefore, while modifying the order of conviction to one u/s 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, sentences the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years & imposes a fine of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand only) & in default to pay the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. It is needless to say, the period of sentence already undergone by the Appellant shall be treated as set off. 14. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. S.C. Parija, J. 15. I agree. Final Result : Allowed