JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the accused appellant and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Ad hoc), Hojai, Shankardev Nagar, in Session Case No. 205(N)/2000 convicting the present accused appellant under Section 392, IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, R.I. for another 3 months. However, the learned trial court acquitted the other accused namely, Harish Ali. 3. The prosecution case is founded on the FIR lodged by one Sri Prem Bahadur Chetri S/o. Late Keshab Bahadur Chetry, resident of No. 7. Pub-Odali, Nepali Basti stating inter alia that on 7.4.1996 at about 1 a.m., some unknown dacoits looted his house and took away property worth about Rs. 9,000. During the commission of dacoity, the dacoits assaulted the complainant's brother Sri Indra Bahadur Chetry causing grievous injuries to him. The case was registered as Lanka PS. Case No. 13/96 under Sections 395/397, IPC. The police, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the present accused appellant and others under Sections 395/397, IPC. The trial court framed charge against them under the aforesaid sections against one Md. Niazur Rahman and Harish Ali. Pleading not guilty to the aforesaid charges they demanded trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, to prove its case. No witness was examined by the defence except pleading innocence and not guilty. On the basis of the evidence and other materials on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the present accused appellant as indicated above. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it has been established that the occurrence took place in the dark night. None of the members of the dacoit's party could be identified by the inmates of the house where the dacoity was committed. 5. PW3, Sri Prem Bahadur Chetry, the informant having come to know that dacoit party came to their house, somehow managed to flee away and inform the villagers. When he came back with some villagers, he found his brother Indra Bahadur Chetry in an injured condition. 5. PW3, Sri Prem Bahadur Chetry, the informant having come to know that dacoit party came to their house, somehow managed to flee away and inform the villagers. When he came back with some villagers, he found his brother Indra Bahadur Chetry in an injured condition. He was told by his injured brother that he sustained injuries in the hands of the dacoits but he could also cause injuries to some of the dacoits. The aforesaid injured brother Indra Bahadur Chetry was also examined as PW2. He corroborated the evidence of PW3. Smt. Narayani Devi, wife of PW3, was also examined as PW4, who deposed that Indra Bahadur Chetry too fought back the dacoits who came by covering their faces by black clothes. 6. The I.O., Sri Kishore Kr. Nath, was examined as PW8. According to him, he was the in-charge of Pub-Odali Police Out Post at the relevant time and on receiving the FIR from PW3, he started the investigation. He visited the place of occurrence and found pools of blood inside and outside the house and a trail of blood leading to a particular direction. He followed the said trail of blood and found a hand made pistol including a khukri from the nearby paddy field of the house where the incident took place. He seized the said articles. Then again he followed the blood stain which led to the house of accused Md. Niazur Rahman who was found with injuries in his face and left hand. According to Sri Binod Ch. Das, PW9, who was serving as in-charge D.J.M., Sankardev Nagar, at the relevant time, deposed before the learned trial court that the aforesaid accused person was produced before him in an injured condition. He found injuries on his face and left hand under bandage. 2(two) independent witnesses, namely PWs 6 and 7, and 4(four) other villagers were examined. According to them, after the occurrence, they visited the house of PW2 where the dacoity took place. They found none of the family members as they shifted the injured person to hospital. However, they came to know later on that the I.O. (PW8) followed the blood stains from the place of occurrence and found the accused appellant in his house in an injured condition. 7. They found none of the family members as they shifted the injured person to hospital. However, they came to know later on that the I.O. (PW8) followed the blood stains from the place of occurrence and found the accused appellant in his house in an injured condition. 7. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he was apprised of the evidence led by the prosecution against him. From his statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is found that he did not deny the presence of injuries on his person but he offered no explanation about how he received the said injuries. 8. The learned Counsel for the accused appellant submits that no other witness was adduced by the prosecution to prove the fact that the I.O. (PW8) followed the blood stains and found the appellant in his house with injuries on his body and as such the conviction imposed on the appellant is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is liable to be acquitted. 9. Countering the said submission, Mr. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, submits that the blood stains was seen by the villagers including the PWs 6 and 7 and it does not matter whether they accompanied the I.O. while leading to the house of the appellant. The failure of the appellant in explaining the injuries on his person with evidence, is enough to convict the accused person and the impugned judgment and order cannot be interfered with on that ground alone. 10. It appears that the impugned conviction and sentence has been handed down upon the appellant primarily on the basis of the evidence of PW8 supported by the circumstantial evidence which goes against the accused appellant. As there was no eye witness to the occurrence, the prosecution has to defend on the circumstantial evidence. The accused appellant admitted receipt of injuries on his person and he failed to explain how he received the said injuries. But the prosecution has been able to show and establish that there was trail of blood stain from the place of occurrence. This has been corroborated by PWs 6 and 7, inasmuch as, they categorically stated that they came to the house of PW3, place of occurrence and saw the trail of blood stains. But the prosecution has been able to show and establish that there was trail of blood stain from the place of occurrence. This has been corroborated by PWs 6 and 7, inasmuch as, they categorically stated that they came to the house of PW3, place of occurrence and saw the trail of blood stains. They are fair enough to say that they did not accompany the I.O. while proceeding to the house of the appellant following the blood stain. In my considered view, the aforesaid facts and circumstances are enough to draw an inference of guilt against the accused appellant applying the principle laid down in Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC 1355 , it has been held with reaffirmation that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified when all, the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Another principle on the law of presumption as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 577 , may also be applied to the present case. That was a case where a bride in her incipient twenties was whacked to death at her nuptial home and her husband and his brother and father were indicated for her murder. There was no eye witness in the said case. In such a case, how the law of presumption is to be inducted, has been outlined in paragraph 28 of the said decision. For better appreciation, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: 28. Under Section 4 of the Evidence Act "whenever it is directed by this Act that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved". So the court has no option but to presume that the accused had caused dowry death unless the accused disproves it. It is a statutory compulsion on the court. However, it is open to the accused to adduce evidence for disproving the said compulsory presumption, as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so. He can discharge such burden either by eliciting answers through cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution or by adducing evidence on the defence side or by both. 11. However, it is open to the accused to adduce evidence for disproving the said compulsory presumption, as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so. He can discharge such burden either by eliciting answers through cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution or by adducing evidence on the defence side or by both. 11. Here, in the present case, the accused appellant has failed to discharge his burden to disprove the fact on the allegation by adducing his evidence. Although the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined, no suggestion was put by the defence counsel to the I.O. (PW8) to the effect that he never followed the blood stains from the place of occurrence to the house of the accused appellant, nor did he put any suggestion to the said I.O. to the effect that he did not find the accused appellant in his house in an injured condition and did not produce him before the Magistrate, PW9. It is also found that the defence counsel did not even care to put suggestion to I.O. to the effect that it was not the blood stains of accused appellant Md. Niazur Rahman but the blood stains of some other person. From the manner of cross-examination it is found that the defence accepted the position that the accused appellant sustained injuries at the place of occurrence while one of the inmates of the house fought back the dacoit party and the accused appellant, with injuries on his person, fled away from the place of occurrence and took shelter in his own house. The defence has also submitted that the accused appellant was apprehended in injured condition in his house. The defence did not take any plea that the accused appellant received injuries due to some other reasons. This is reflected from the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That may be the reason why the accused appellant did not make any attempt to explain how he received injuries and refused to adduce any evidence in support of his defence. This is reflected from the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That may be the reason why the accused appellant did not make any attempt to explain how he received injuries and refused to adduce any evidence in support of his defence. I am, not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of sole evidence of the I.O. As I have already discussed that the evidence of I.O. (PW8), has been substantially corroborated by the co-villagers, PWs 6 and 7, who have deposed before the learned trial court that they visited the place of occurrence after the incident and found the trail of blood leading from the place of occurrence and subsequently they came to know that the said I.O. followed the blood stains and found the accused appellant in his house in injured position. 12. In my considered view, with the aforesaid evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, needs no interference and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence as handed down by the learned Addl. Session Judge (Ad hoc), Hojai, Shankardev Nagar, in Session Case No. 205(N)/2000, stands affirmed. 13. It is stated that the accused appellant Md. Niazur Rahman is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Shankardev Nagar, Hojai, immediately, to serve the sentence and if he fails to do so, the learned S.D.J.M. shall take necessary steps. 14. It is needless to say that the period of detention of the accused appellant, during investigation, trial and after trial, if any, shall be set-off from the period of imprisonment in the sentence. 15. Send down the L.C.R forthwith. Appeal dismissed