JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada, in Criminal Trial No. 39 of 2005, holding him guilty under Sections 302/201/404 Indian Penal Code & convicting him thereunder. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the informant Gaja Naik (P.W.3) is the grand-father of deceased Sulochana. Four years prior to the incident, the daughter of the informant Aparna & her husband expired. After their death, the informant was looking after their children including the deceased, who was their second daughter & was aged about ten years at the time of her death. The deceased & her sisters were staying in village Karli in their father's house, whereas the informant was staying at his village Maribhata. About one year back, on a Thursday while the informant was present in the house, one Tahasil Naik came to his house & informed him that the day before Sulochana went to Tikiri along with the accused. The accused returned back to the village in the night but Sulochana did not return. He further informed that they were searching for Sulochana but could not get her trace. On receipt of such information, the informant came to village Karli & searched for Sulochana & not being able to get any trace of her, he lodged written report at the Tikiri Police Station regarding missing of his grand-daughter Sulochana. Thereafter, he continued to search for Sulochana & during his search, he met Suru Naik of village Kaliakana, who disclosed before him that near village Chhatamba, the accused murdered Sulochana & threw her dead body. Accordingly, the informant went towards village Chhatamba & searched for Sulochana & near village Bhaludangar, he found the dead body of Sulochana lying on the ground & her face was completely damaged. The informant again, went to the police station & narrated the incident before the police, which was reduced into writing by the O.I.C., Tikiri Police Station & was registered as an FIR vide Tikiri P.S. Case No. 84 dated 20.12.2004. 3. The informant again, went to the police station & narrated the incident before the police, which was reduced into writing by the O.I.C., Tikiri Police Station & was registered as an FIR vide Tikiri P.S. Case No. 84 dated 20.12.2004. 3. During investigation, the I.O. held inquest over the dead body of the deceased & visited the spot, seized a big stone stained with blood, some blood stained earth & sample earth & despatched the dead body for post-mortem examination & also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, after post-mortem examination. During investigation, it came to light that the accused had taken the deceased along with him to Tikiri on the date of occurrence & both of them were returning to the village in the evening & Dhanurjaya @ Suru Naik (P.W.11) saw the accused committing the murder of the deceased. The I.O. arrested the accused & sent him for medical examination. During interrogation, the accused disclosed before the police & the witnesses that after committing murder he had removed a pair of golden ear-ring (Jamilis) from the ears of the deceased & mortgaged the said pair of ear- ring at Tikiri with one Rajendra Sahu for Rs. 1000. The accused further disclosed that he had purchased cloths for stitching his pant & shirt from that amount & handed over the pant & shirt cloth pieces to one tailor Asit Chakrobarty at Tikiri. Accordingly, the accused led the police & the witnesses to the shop of the gold smith Purna Chandra Achary & to the house of Rajendra Sahu & the said golden Jamilis were seized from him. The accused then led the police & the witnesses to the tailoring shop of Asit Chakrobarty & from the said shop, one pant & shirt pieces & the counter foil of money receipt granted to the accused were seized. The I.O. also seized the wearing apparels of the accused & sent the seized blood stained stone to the doctor for examination & opinion. On receipt of the opinion of the doctor, he sent all the exhibits to RFSL, Berhampur for chemical examination & after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused person. 4. The plea of the accused was one of complete denied & that he has been falsely implicated. On receipt of the opinion of the doctor, he sent all the exhibits to RFSL, Berhampur for chemical examination & after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused person. 4. The plea of the accused was one of complete denied & that he has been falsely implicated. It was further pleaded by the defence that Suru Naik (P.W.11) & Linga Naik (P.W.12) have murdered Sulochana & threw her dead body at Bhaludangar, which the accused could came to know from Rabi Naik & Rajendra Naik & that he had been to the Police Station to inform the matter but the police did not enquire into the matter & instead arrested him & that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1 is the ASI of Police, who is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the accused. P.W. 2 is a Police Constable, who kept watch over the dead body at Chhatamba & in his presence the I.O. held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sulochana & he also accompanied the dead body for post-mortem examination & after the post-mortem examination was over, he produced the wearing apparels of the deceased before the I.O.P.W.2 also accompanied the accused to the hospital for medical examination & for collection of his blood sample & nail clippings & produced two vials containing blood sample & nail clippings of the accused before the I.O.P.W.3 is the informant & P.W. 4 is the niece of the accused & sister of deceased Sulochana. P.W. 5 had been to the house of Linga Naik (P.W.12) in village Tikiri on the date of occurrence & saw both the accused & the deceased Sulochana were present there & heard about their discussions & saw both of them were returning back to the village in the evening. P.W. 6 is the goldsmith to whom the accused had approached for keeping the gold ear-rings (Jamilis) on mortgage but he refused & instead took the accused to Rajendra Sahu, who kept the gold ear- rings on mortgage. P.W. 7 is Rajendra Sahu, who kept the golden ear-rings on mortgage & paid Rs. 1000 to the accused. P.W. 6 is the goldsmith to whom the accused had approached for keeping the gold ear-rings (Jamilis) on mortgage but he refused & instead took the accused to Rajendra Sahu, who kept the gold ear- rings on mortgage. P.W. 7 is Rajendra Sahu, who kept the golden ear-rings on mortgage & paid Rs. 1000 to the accused. P.W. 8 is the tailor with whom the accused had placed order for stitching his pant & shirt & had handed over the pant & shirt pieces, who had granted a money receipt to the accused. P.W. 9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 10 is a witness to the seizure of the pant & shirt pieces from the tailoring shop of Asit Chakrobarty. P.W. 11 is Suru Naik, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 12 is Linga Naik, in whose house there was a discussion between the accused & the deceased regarding loan amount & both of them returned back to the village in the evening from his house. P.W. 13 is the I.O. 6. The defence examined three witnesses in support of their plea that Suru Naik (P.W.11) had committed the murder of deceased Sulochana with the help of Linga Naik (P.W.12). P.W. 11 in his evidence stated that on the date of occurrence, while he was returning to Tikiri, on the way near Chhatamba, he saw the accused & the deceased going together towards village Karli & he was going behind them. He saw the accused giving a push to the deceased, who fell down & thereafter the accused brought a stone & threw the stone on the head of the deceased & that the accused was also looking towards the ear of the deceased. Out of fear, he (P.W.11) left the place & did not narrate the incident before anybody. Four day's after he saw Gaja Naik was searching for his grand-daughter Sulochana & he told him to search for her grand-daughter at Bhaludangar & the dead body of Sulochana was located at Bhaludangar. 7. In his cross-examination, P.W. 11 categorically stated that on that date he had been to the house of his elder brother Linga Naik (P.W.12). He went to Bali river & stayed there up to 4 P.M. & then came back to Tikiri bus stand & then returned to his village. 7. In his cross-examination, P.W. 11 categorically stated that on that date he had been to the house of his elder brother Linga Naik (P.W.12). He went to Bali river & stayed there up to 4 P.M. & then came back to Tikiri bus stand & then returned to his village. He further stated that Chhatamba is at a distance of one furlong from Tikiri bus stand & that accused & deceased Sulochana were going ahead of him at a distance of 15 cubits. He further stated that he had seen the accused giving a push on the neck of Sulochana, as a result of which she rolled on the ground & then the accused gave a blow by means of a stone on her head & was also looking to the ear of Sulochana. At that time, he fled away from the spot out of fear. 8. In absence of any material contradiction & inconsistencies, Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of the eye witness (P.W.11) to be trust-worthy & his explanation, that out of fear he fled away from the spot & remained silent for four days & when he found the informant searching for Sulochana (deceased), he intimated him about the incident, which was found to be satisfactory. Further the evidence of P.W. 11 finds support from the evidence of other witnesses, who had seen both the accused & the deceased going together towards their village. Moreover, the evidence of P.W. 11 also finds support from the seizure of big stone stained with blood & blood stained earth from the spot. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of P.W. 11 to be cogent, reliable & trust worthy & the same was inconsistent with the medical evidence. 9. Coming to the last scene theory, the evidence of P.W. 5 Putu Naik as well as P. Ws 11 & 12 throw much light. The back-ground of the prosecution story was that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 150 from Maina Naik (P.W.4), who is the sister of the deceased Sulochana & did not return the loan amount. On the date of occurrence, Sulochana had been to the house of the accused to ask him to return the loan amount but the accused took her to Tikiri, giving her impression that he would return back the loan amount there. On the date of occurrence, Sulochana had been to the house of the accused to ask him to return the loan amount but the accused took her to Tikiri, giving her impression that he would return back the loan amount there. This fact finds support from the evidence of P. Ws.4 & 12. Both the accused & the deceased were sitting on the verandah of the house of P.W. 12 & discussing with each other. The accused left the deceased in the house of P.W. 12 & went to arrange money. At about 4 to 5 P.M. the accused returned back & called the deceased to return back to their village & both of them were returning to their village in the evening. The said fact has also been corroborated by P.W. 5, who stated that he had been to the house of Linga Naik (P.W.12) & was present there, when both the accused & the deceased arrived & sat on the verandah along with him & the accused told that he was going to arrange money & after arranging money, they will return back. So saying, the accused went away & the deceased was present in the house of P.W. 12. P.W. 5 further submitted that the accused returned back at about 4 to 5 P.M. & called the deceased & asked her to return back to the village. P.W. 5 requested them to stay back & return to the village on the next day, but the deceased went back along with the accused to the village. When he (P.W.5) returned to his village on the next day, he met P.W. 4, the elder sister of the deceased, who enquired from him about Sulochana & he informed her that last evening Sulochana had returned back to the village along with the accused. P.W. 12 also corroborated the statement of P.W. 5 regarding return of Sulochana along with the accused to the village in the evening. 10. Coming to the alleged disclosure statement made by the accused before the police & the witnesses & the seizure of pair of golden ear-rings & pant & shirt cloth pieces at the instance of the accused. P.W. 12 also corroborated the statement of P.W. 5 regarding return of Sulochana along with the accused to the village in the evening. 10. Coming to the alleged disclosure statement made by the accused before the police & the witnesses & the seizure of pair of golden ear-rings & pant & shirt cloth pieces at the instance of the accused. P.W. 12 has categorically stated in his evidence that on interrogation by the police, the accused disclosed that he had taken away the pair of golden Jamilis (ear-rings) from the dead body of Sulochana & approached Purna Chandra Achary, a goldsmith (P.W.6) who took him to the house of Rajendra Sahu (P.W.7) & mortgaged the pair of golden Jamilis with P.W. 7. P.W. 12 has further stated that the accused led the police, himself and Anr. witness Rajana to the house of Rajendra Sahu (P.W.7). who handed over a pair of golden Jamilis, which was seized by the police under Seizure List (Ext.6). The I.O. (P.W.13) also stated about the said fact in his evidence & that the accused had also disclosed that out of the mortgaged amount of Rs. 1,000 he has purchased a shirt & pant cloth pieces & handed over the same to the tailor Asit Chakrobarty (P.W.8), who granted a money receipt to him. P.W. 13 further stated that the accused led the police & the witnesses to the tailoring shop of P.W. 8, from where the shirt & pant cloth pieces & money receipts were seized from P.W. 8. 11. P.W. 6 is the goldsmith to whom the accused approached for keeping the ear-rings & to advance him money, but he refused to keep the pair of gold Jamilis (ear-rings) on mortgage & instead, took the accused to the house of P.W. 7, who agreed to keep the gold Jamilis on mortgage & gave Rs. 1000 to the accused. P.W. 6 in his evidence has completely supported the said fact & nothing contradictory could be elicited in the cross-examination, except that he did not know the accused prior to the incident. 1000 to the accused. P.W. 6 in his evidence has completely supported the said fact & nothing contradictory could be elicited in the cross-examination, except that he did not know the accused prior to the incident. The plea of the defence was that when the goldsmith (P.W.6) did not know the accused, prior to the case, no reliance can be placed on his evidence, especially when there was no reason for the accused to have approached him for keeping the gold ear-rings on mortgage Learned Additional Sessions Judge came to find on the basis of the materials on record, that merely because P.W. 6 did not know the accused earlier, the same cannot be a ground to discard his evidence, especially when P.W. 7 has fully supported the fact that on 17.12.2004, P.W. 6 and Anr. person had come to his house & that P.W. 6 had come inside his house & the other person was standing outside. P.W. 7 has further stated that P.W. 6 gave him two golden ear-rings (Jamilis) & asked him to keep the same on mortgage & to give Rs. 1000. P.W. 7 had further stated that on 21.12.2004, the police came along with P.W. 6 & asked him to produce the said pair of golden ear-rings & accordingly, he handed over the same to the police, which he identified in the Court as M.O.VII. In the cross-examination, P.W. 7 has stated that P.W. 6 told him that he required Rs. 1000 by mortgaging golden ear-rings (Jamilis) & he accordingly gave Rs. 1 000 & kept the Jamilis. He further stated that the police came to his house & seized the golden Jamilis. The evidence of P. Ws 12 & 13 have been corroborated by the evidence of the tailor (P.W.8) regarding disclosure statement of the accused & the consequence seizure of pant & Shirt pieces at the instance of the accused. P.W. 8 stated that one person came to his shop on 17.12.2004 & disclosed his name as Rajiba Naik & gave order for stitching one pant & shirt. He accordingly granted one receipt to him. He identified the counter foil of the receipt & proved the same as Ext. 7. P.W. 8 stated that one person came to his shop on 17.12.2004 & disclosed his name as Rajiba Naik & gave order for stitching one pant & shirt. He accordingly granted one receipt to him. He identified the counter foil of the receipt & proved the same as Ext. 7. P.W. 8 further stated that 4 to 5 days thereafter, the police came along with that person, who had placed order for stitching of the pant & shirt & seized the pant & shirt cloth pieces & the counter foil of receipt. He identified the pant & shirt pieces as M. Os. VIII & IX. 12. On the basis of such evidence on record, Learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the evidence of the I.O. is fully supported by the evidence of P. Ws. 6 & 7, 8 & 12 & therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish the leading to discovery of the pair of golden Jamilis (ear-rings), pant & shirt cloth pieces at the instance of the accused. 13. The seizure of the blood stained stone & blood stained earth as per the seizure list, has been supported by the I.O. (P.W.13). The doctor (P.W.9) has also stated that the I.O. had sent the seized weapon of offence i.e. blood stained stone for examination & opinion & he has verified the seized stone & opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be possible by the seized stone. That apart, human blood stains were found on the seized stone, seized blood stained earth & red shirt of the deceased, as revealed from the chemical examination report (Ext.19), which supported the prosecution case & proved that the accused is the author of the crime. 14. Coming to the evidence adduced by the defence in support of its plea that Suru Naik (P.W.11) is the author of the crime, who has committed the murder of the deceased Sulochana with the help of Linga Naik (P.W.12), Learned Sessions Judge has found the evidence of D. Ws.1 & 3 as not trust worthy & not free from contradictions. Moreover, the evidence of D. Ws.1 & 3 did not find support from the evidence of other witnesses & accordingly came to find that the defence has failed to establish its plea. 15. Moreover, the evidence of D. Ws.1 & 3 did not find support from the evidence of other witnesses & accordingly came to find that the defence has failed to establish its plea. 15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on an analysis of the evidence on record, both oral & documentary, & keeping in view the evidence of the eye witness to the occurrence (P.W.11), which was found to be cogent, reliable & trust worthy & recovery of the pair of ear-rings (Jamilis) & the seizure of pant & shirt cloth pieces by way of leading to discovery, at the instance of the accused as well as the evidence of the doctor with regard to the bloodstained stone, which was used as the weapon of offence & the chemical examination report, came to hold that the charges levelled against the accused have been fully established. Accordingly, Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Sections 302/201/404 Indian Penal Code, & convicted him there under. 16. On a perusal of the evidence on record, we find that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witness (P.W. 11), especially when there is no material contradiction & the same find support from the evidence of other witnesses. Further the evidence of the goldsmith (P.W.6) & Rajendra Sahu (P.W.7), who had kept the golden ear-rings (Jamilis) on mortgage & paid Rs. 1000 to the accused & the evidence of the tailor (P.W.8), who had received the pant & shirt pieces from the accused for stitching & had granted the receipt, clearly establishes recovery of the said articles at the in stance of the accused. Further the chemical examination report of the blood stained stone, which was used as the weapon of offence, goes to prove the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. A reading of all the evidence clearly points the finger at the accused, who alone is the author of the crime & after killing Sulochana, he had removed her ear-rings & mortgaged the same with P.W. 7 & from out of the money received, had purchased the pant & shirt pieces, which he had given for stitching to P.W. 8. Hence we do not find any contractions or any inconsistencies in the evidence so as to disbelieve the prosecution case. 17. Hence we do not find any contractions or any inconsistencies in the evidence so as to disbelieve the prosecution case. 17. On the basis of the evidence as discussed above & keeping in view the findings of the Learned Sessions Judge & the reasons assigned in support of the same, we do not find any apparent error or any illegality in the impugned order of conviction, so as to warrant any interference. 18. The Criminal Appeal being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. A.S. Naidu, J. 19. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed