JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'the Code'] is to the judgment and order dated 15/01/2005 rendered in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2, Surat [for short 'the trial Court'], whereby the appellant, who was original accused in the said sessions case, came to be convicted for the offence of murder of his wife - Javitridevi punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment [RI] for one year. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is that the appellant – accused along with his wife named Javitridevi, was doing labour work in Surat in the factory of PW 13 Dineshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, which was situated in the area called Pandol Road, Shed No. 435, Surat. As per the prosecution case, the accused with his wife Javitridevi, was residing in a room which was situated on the first floor of the factory and in the ground floor, workers of the factory including the accused were performing their duties during day time. 3. It is the prosecution case that the relationship between the accused and his deceased wife was not cordial and he accused suspected character and fidelity of his wife. First informant Omprakash Raghuvir Mangalya was husband of sister of deceased Javitridevi. Thus, first informant Omprakash was brother-in-law of the accused. Omprakash was also serving as worker in the factory and it is the prosecution case that at the instance of Omprakash, accused got his employment in the factory as well as a residential accommodation in the first floor of the factory. Omprakash on and often visited the room wherein accused and his wife were residing. The accused, therefore, suspected that Omprakash was maintaining illicit relations with his wife Javitridevi. It is also the prosecution case that the accused used to demand dowry from his in-laws and on that count he was ill-treating his deceased wife. 3.1. The incident occurred on 5/1/2002. Omprakash on and often visited the room wherein accused and his wife were residing. The accused, therefore, suspected that Omprakash was maintaining illicit relations with his wife Javitridevi. It is also the prosecution case that the accused used to demand dowry from his in-laws and on that count he was ill-treating his deceased wife. 3.1. The incident occurred on 5/1/2002. According to the prosecution case, all the workers of the factory including the accused reported to their duty at about 8.00 a.m. They worked upto 1.00 p.m., and after 1.00 p.m., there was a lunch break and during the lunch break, the accused went to his room for lunch and the deceased was at that time in the room. The lunch break was of one hour and round about 2.30 p.m., all the workers re-assembled except the accused. It is the prosecution case that accused came to factory at about 4.00 p.m., and he was found frightened. At about 4.30 p.m., Sangeeta, daughter of a worker came to the factory shouting that Javitridevi in her room was found unconscious and she saw blood oozing from her body. The workers along with the accused went to the room and found dead body of Javitridevi lying in the room. As per the prosecution case, the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. 4. Omprakash, brother-in-law of the accused reported the incident to Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat and his FIR was registered. During the course of police investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Panchnama of the scene of offence came to be drawn in presence of panchas. Accused came to be arrested and at the time of his arrest, his shirt found to be blood stained. Required muddamal articles like clothes of the deceased, clothes of the accused, etc., came to be recovered and were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] for examination. Post Mortem Report of the deceased was collected. At the time of arrest of the accused, some injury was found on his body and, therefore, he was sent to hospital for treatment, etc. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of charge-sheet, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. Since the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Ld. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of charge-sheet, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. Since the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Surat, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 73/2002 and said Sessions Case was made over for trial to the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Court, F.T.C. No. 2, Surat. 5. The trial Court framed charge against the accused at exh. 4, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. Prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses and produced relevant documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, trial Court recorded further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'the Code']. The accused in his further statement denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution and put to the accused by the trial Court and stated that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not examine any defence witness nor he himself stepped into the witness box. 6. The trial Court, examining and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, came to the conclusion that the prosecution case solely rested upon the circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness examined by the prosecution, who had seen the actual commission of murder of the deceased by the accused. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution produced cogent, clear and trustworthy evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence was well established. Resultantly, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and recorded the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment. 7. Ms. Trusha H Mehta, learned advocate representing appellant – accused, appointed by Legal Aid Committee, submitted that the trial Court committed serious illegality and mistake in recording the conviction of the accused for the offence charged against him. 7. Ms. Trusha H Mehta, learned advocate representing appellant – accused, appointed by Legal Aid Committee, submitted that the trial Court committed serious illegality and mistake in recording the conviction of the accused for the offence charged against him. It is contended that there is no eye witness to the incident and, therefore, the prosecution case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. That all the material witnesses including the first informant Omprakas have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 7.1. Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – accused submitted that six circumstances pitted by the prosecution against the accused, but considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, none of the circumstances can be said to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and they are not forming complete chain of the circumstantial evidence. That, therefore, the circumstances pitted by the prosecution should not have been made base for recording conviction of the accused. It is asserted that the circumstances narrated by the prosecution are very weak and many links in the chain are missing and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also emphasized by Ms. Mehta that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove unerringly that the accused was responsible for the alleged offence. 7.2. It is further submitted by Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – accused that the prosecution alleged a circumstance against the accused that after the commission of the crime, the accused in presence of co-workers, made confessional statement about killing of his wife, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the circumstances. That the clothes put on by the accused at the time of alleged commission of offence though were found blood stained, it was not established that the clothes contained blood of the deceased. There is no discovery of any incriminating substance at the instance of the accused. 7.3. On the aforesaid premises, according to Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – accused, a doubt is raised in the prosecution case and hence conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC for murdering his wife Javitridevi is not well founded and the same deserves to be set aside. 7.3. On the aforesaid premises, according to Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – accused, a doubt is raised in the prosecution case and hence conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC for murdering his wife Javitridevi is not well founded and the same deserves to be set aside. She has also submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and spirit, which resulted in reaching to a wrong conclusion. 7.4. Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – accused read out the evidence of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive behind the crime allegedly attributed to the accused. It is submitted that when the prosecution case solely rests upon circumstantial evidence, motive plays predominant role and in absence of proof of motive alleged against the accused, the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 7.5. She has therefore, prayed that this appeal preferred by the appellant accused challenging his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court be allowed and the impugned judgment and order rendered by the trial Court may be set aside and the appellant – accused may be acquitted of the offence with which he was charged, by giving benefit of doubt. 8. Mr. L B Dabhi, Ld. APP for the respondent – State of Gujarat has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – accused. According to him, it is true that there is no eye witness to the incident and, therefore, the case against the accused is proved by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution successfully proved that at the time of the incident, the accused along with his deceased wife Javitridevi, was residing in a room which was situated on the first floor of the factory and the accused along with other co-workers used to do labour work in the ground floor portion of the factory. That the prosecution successfully proved that during recess hours, accused went to his room for taking lunch and at that time deceased was in the room. That the prosecution successfully proved that during recess hours, accused went to his room for taking lunch and at that time deceased was in the room. All the workers, except the accused reported to their duty at 2.30 p.m., but the accused did not report to his duty in time and came to the factory at about 4.00 p.m. That the prosecution successfully proved that soon thereafter, girl Sangeeta found body of the deceased lying in the room and she started shouting and thereupon all the workers including the accused went to the room and found the dead-body of the deceased. 8.1. Mr. Dabhi, Ld. APP further submitted that at the time of the arrest of the accused, his shirt was found containing blood stains and the same was recovered and was sent to FSL for examination and the blood stains contained blood of group “B” of the deceased. That at the time of arrest of the accused, abrasions by nails were found on the body of the accused and for the said injury, the accused was sent to hospital and the prosecution has adduced the evidence of medical officer, who examined the injuries of the accused and who had issued the certificate. 8.2. Mr. Dabhi, Ld. APP asserted that the prosecution has adduced cogent and convincing evidence in support of the motive attributed by the prosecution to the accused for commission of the offence. It is submitted that the prosecution examined parents of the deceased and their evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. It is submitted that mere fact that upon certain particulars, first informant Omprakash and some of the workers who were examined was witnesses for the prosecution, were declared hostile witnesses since they did not support some part of the prosecution case, thereby their entire evidence cannot be discarded and the part of the evidence which they support in their testimonies, should be taken into consideration. It is submitted that in the instant case, it is true that one of the circumstances alleged by the prosecution against accused was that soon after the incident, the accused made extra judicial confession admitting his guilt before other workers and so far as the extra judicial confession aspect is concerned, the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution, but the other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence have been well established. That, therefore, out of six circumstances pitted by the prosecution against the accused, the prosecution successfully established relevant five circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. It is also emphasized by him that the circumstances pitted against the accused by the prosecution to prove complicity of the accused in commission of the offence, are cogently and firmly established by the prosecution and the circumstances established by the evidence of witnesses of sterling quality, unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and if all the circumstances taken cumulatively, form a complete chain that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Mr. Dabhi has further contended that by adducing and producing evidence of sterling quality, the whole tangle of the case has been untangled before the Court and the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and reached to the most appropriate conclusions. According to him, the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under section 374 [2] of the Code and accordingly it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Mehta, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Dabhi, Ld. APP for the respondent – State at length and in great detail. This Court has undertaken complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence on record, which is read and re-read by the learned advocates for the parties, with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. We have also carefully considered the impugned judgment and order rendered by the trial Court, so also the record and proceedings of the case in context with the submissions made by rival side, so also the judgment cited at the bar. 10. At the outset, so far as homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute. The prosecution examined Dr. Shaileshbhai Javeri, PW 1 at exh. 8, who performed autopsy on the body of the deceased Javitridevi. Exh. 11 is the P M Report. Considering the evidence of Dr. Javeri and the P M Report exh. 11, it is clear that ligature mark was found almost round the neck of the deceased. The prosecution examined Dr. Shaileshbhai Javeri, PW 1 at exh. 8, who performed autopsy on the body of the deceased Javitridevi. Exh. 11 is the P M Report. Considering the evidence of Dr. Javeri and the P M Report exh. 11, it is clear that ligature mark was found almost round the neck of the deceased. The cause of death is shown to be asphyxia due to strangulation. Even otherwise considering the evidence of those witnesses, who were co-workers in the factory and who went to the room of the accused and the deceased when they were informed that a dead-body in a bleeding condition of the deceased was lying in the room, all these witnesses examined by the prosecution unequivocally say that they found Javitridevi dead in the room. Neither it is a defence raised by the accused nor there is any evidence to the effect that Javitridevi committed suicide. Considering the evidence of Dr. Javeri PW 1, he categorically stated that there was a homicidal death and considering the nature of the injuries, the same were not possible either by suicide or were not in the nature of self-inflicted injuries. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that deceased Javitridevi met with homicidal death. 11. It may be noted that the prosecution case against the accused is rested on the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness to the incident of killing the deceased Javitridevi. 12. It is settled principle of law that in order to sustain conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must fulfill three conditions: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the Accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the Accused. Further, in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the Accused. The above principles are laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1388 . 13. It is also one of the settled principles of law that witnesses may tell lies but not circumstances. The Court must adopt cautious approach for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court has reiterated it in the case of State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash, reported in AIR 1994 SC 468 . 14. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ramkumar Madhusudan Pathak v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 702 , has aptly and elaborately laid down the principles as to which are the circumstances establishing guilt of the accused. 15. The Supreme Court in the very well known case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , has laid down the following five principles to base conviction on the circumstantial evidence: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused. 16. 16. In the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 169 , it has been held that merely because the accused could have had a motive for causing death of the deceased, it would not by itself be enough to sustain the finding of guilt against him. 17. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 2914 , Hon'ble the Apex Court almost reiterated the above propositions laid down earlier regarding appreciation and evaluation of the evidence which is in the nature of circumstantial evidence. The said case was based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Even in that case, some of the witnesses turned hostile. Hon'ble the Apex Court in para. 15 of the judgment, held that the testimony of hostile witness need not be rejected in entirety. In said case, on behalf of the appellant, it was also contended that the motive attributed to the appellant for commission of the crime was not established by the prosecution. Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive provides foundational material, but the absence of motive may not be of much consequence when chain of proved circumstances is complete. 18. Keeping in forefront the aforesaid principles clearly elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we may now advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether the prosecution has successfully established the chain of evidence to base the conviction on the circumstantial evidence adduced by it with regard to the complicity of appellant - accused in committing the offence of murder of his wife deceased Javitridevi. 19. To prove the case against the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has pitted the following circumstances against the accused: (i) The accused last seen together in the room in the company of the deceased while deceased was alive. (ii) The relationship between the spouses, namely the accused and his deceased wife Javitridevi was not cordial and the deceased was meted out with cruelty by the accused. (ii) The relationship between the spouses, namely the accused and his deceased wife Javitridevi was not cordial and the deceased was meted out with cruelty by the accused. (iii) The blood marks found on the shirt of the accused which he had put on at the time of the incident were found to be of the blood of the deceased when the shirt was examined by the FSL. Shirt was also found to be torn out near the pocket. (iv) When the accused was arrested, abrasion injuries were found on his left hand and on his chest and the medical evidence opined that the abrasion injuries were possible by nails. (v) Abnormal conduct of the accused. (vi) No explanation furnished by the accused in his further statement under section 313 of the Code regarding finding of dead-body of his wife in the room occupied by himself and his deceased wife. 20. We have re-appreciated, re-examined and re-scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case before the trial Court. There is no dispute that at the time of the incident the room which was allotted to the accused in capacity as worker in the factory, was situated on the first floor of the factory and the factory was running in the ground floor and, therefore, the room was in the exclusive possession of the accused. It also emerged from the evidence on record that including the room allotted to the accused, there were in-all three rooms in a row and in the remaining two rooms only goods were stored and were not occupied by any co-worker. It also emerged from the evidence on record that including the room allotted to the accused, there were in-all three rooms in a row and in the remaining two rooms only goods were stored and were not occupied by any co-worker. There is also no dispute that on the day of the incident i.e. 5/1/2002, the accused reported to his duty at about 8.00 a.m. Examining the evidence of co-workers and more particularly the owner of the factory, namely PW 13 Dineshbhai Ranchhodbhai and Labour Contractor PW 14 – Chhedilal Krupalram, it transpires that the daily schedule for working of the workers was that the labour work used to be commenced at 8.00 a.m., or 8.30 a.m., then there was a lunch break at about 1.00 p.m., and sometimes at 1.30 p.m., upto 2.30 p.m. As stated above, the accused remained on his duty before the lunch break from 8.00 a.m to 1.30 p.m. Examining the evidence of first informant and brother-in-law of the accused, namely PW 9 Omprakash, co-workers, namely PW 15 – Mangal Kevat, PW 16 Bablu Ramashri, PW 17 Rahul Maheshbhai, PW 18 Shriram Rameshwar and PW 19 Chhataku Ramkrupal, it has become clear that at 1.30 p.m., on the day of the incident, during lunch break, the accused went to his room for taking lunch. The evidence suggests that at 2.30 p.m., after the lunch break, the factory work was resumed. However, considering the evidence of PW 9 Omprakash and the evidence of PW 16 Bablu Ramashri and PW 17 Rahul Maheshbhai, they deposed that after the lunch break, they cannot say as to when the accused resumed his duty. But considering the evidence of other co-workers examined by the prosecution, it emerges that the accused did not resume to his duty after the lunch break sharp at 2.30 p.m., but he resumed his duty at about 3.30 p.m., to 4.00 p.m. However, after the lunch break, exactly when the accused resumed to his duty may not be of much significance because all these witnesses unequivocally deposed that during the lunch break which commenced at 1.30 p.m., the accused had gone to his room for his lunch. The evidence reveals that in the room, the accused along with his deceased wife was residing. 20.1. The evidence reveals that in the room, the accused along with his deceased wife was residing. 20.1. Considering the evidence of the co-workers referred to above, it transpires that during the evening hours, girl Sangeeta along with her mother Rambai, came to the factory and loudly shouted that Javitridevi was lying unconscious in her room and they found blood oozing from her mouth. Consequently, it has come in evidence of the above referred co-workers that those witnesses accompanied by accused went to the room of the accused and they found Javitridevi dead in the room and they found blood in the room. Considering the evidence of PW 21 Rambai Rajbahadur and child witness PW 22 Sangeeta Rajbahadur, it becomes clear that during the evening hours Sangeeta went to the room of the accused to meet Javitridevi and when she went into the room, she found Javitridevi lying in the room unconscious. Thereupon, she informed her mother PW 21 Rambai and Rambai also went to the room and found Javitridevi dead. Thereupon, they both went to the factory and informed the workers about the incident. 20.2. In the impugned judgment and order rendered by the trial Court, the evidence of the co-workers as well as the evidence of PW 21 Rambai and PW 22 Sangeeta has been elaborately discussed and dealt with and ultimately the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved the circumstance that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased in the room from where the dead body of the deceased was found out. It is pertinent to note that the room was exclusively occupied by the accused and his deceased wife. On the first floor, there were two other rooms. Those rooms were not inhabited by any co-worker, but were used for storing goods. The fact that during the recess, the accused went to his room has been clearly and aptly proved by the prosecution. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved the circumstance that the accused was lastly present in the room in the company of his deceased wife, when she was alive. 21. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved the circumstance that the accused was lastly present in the room in the company of his deceased wife, when she was alive. 21. Examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses and more particularly considering the evidence of first informant and brother-in-law of the accused, namely PW 9 Omprakash and the evidence of co-workers, namely PW 15 – Mangal Kevat, PW 16 Bablu Ramashri, PW 17 Rahul Maheshbhai, PW 18 Shriram Rameshwar and PW 19 Chhataku Ramkrupal, so also examining the evidence of owner of the factory, namely PW 13 Dineshbhai Ranchhodbhai and Labour Contractor PW 14 – Chhedilal Krupalram, it is clear that they were declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution. We have re-examined their testimonies and it clearly transpires that they supported the case of the prosecution almost on material particulars, namely, the accused was found present in the factory and at 1.30 p.m., he went to his room for lunch and that thereafter in the room the dead-body of the deceased came to be found out. However, all these witnesses do not support the prosecution case regarding the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused admitting his guilt of killing his wife. As observed by Hon'nle the Apex Court in G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka [supra], mere fact that a witness declared as hostile witness, his entire testimony may not be rejected in entirety. His evidence is required to be considered so far as the evidence supports the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, as stated above, despite the fact that about one circumstance, namely extra judicial confession made by the accused admitting his guilt, is not supported by witnesses, thereby their evidence in toto cannot be discarded, as on material particulars, as discussed above, they support the prosecution case. 22. On behalf of the appellant – accused, it was vehemently submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive attributed to the accused for killing his wife. 22. On behalf of the appellant – accused, it was vehemently submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive attributed to the accused for killing his wife. To appreciate this submission and more particularly examining the case of the prosecution, the prosecution alleged that PW 9 Omprakash the first informant and brother-in-law of the accused maintained illicit relations with Javitridevi, the deceased wife of the accused and on that count, the accused used to quarrel with his wife and nurturing such doubt in his mind regarding character and fidelity of his wife, his wife was done to death by the accused. Obviously PW 9 Omprakash in his evidence did not support the case of the prosecution about alleged illicit relation maintained by him with the wife of the accused. Even the co-workers examined by the prosecution did not support this aspect of the matter. However, the prosecution examined parents of the deceased PW 25 Melabhai Punabhai Kevat, father of the deceased and PW 26 Surajiya Melabhai, mother of the deceased. Examining the evidence of the parents of the deceased, it is clear that the matrimonial life of the deceased with the accused was not happy and cordial. It further transpires that the accused demanded money and dowry from his wife. Considering the evidence of mother of the deceased, namely PW 26 Surajiya, she deposed that before about 4 days from the date of the incident, she received a telephone call of her daughter [deceased Javitridevi] and her daughter informed her that she would be killed by her husband [the accused]. It is true that in her cross-examination she admitted that she did not tell to police those facts when her police statement was recorded by the police, but in her further cross-examination she outright denied the suggestion put to her by the defence that she never received any telephone call from her daughter. Thus, the prosecution successfully proved that there was no cordial relationship between the spouses and the deceased was meted out with cruel treatment by the accused. However, as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of G Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka [supra], in a circumstantial evidence case, when a chain of proved circumstances is complete, the evidence regarding motive becomes insignificant. However, as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of G Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka [supra], in a circumstantial evidence case, when a chain of proved circumstances is complete, the evidence regarding motive becomes insignificant. In the instant case, by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the prosecution has proved that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and, therefore, the evidence regarding the motive may not be of much significance. Despite this, as stated above, examining the evidence of the parents of the deceased, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has proved the motive of the deceased to get rid of his wife. 23. Examining the arrest panchnama exh. 17, there is the reference of the fact that the shirt put on by the accused was found torn near left side pocket of the shirt and blood marks were found on the shirt. It is further stated in the arrest panchnama that on the left hand thumb and on the chest of the accused, abrasions were found. There is no dispute that both the panchas, namely Shriram Vishvanath and Mohmed Irfan of this arrest panchnama of the accused did not support the contents of the panchnama exh. 17 and they were declared as hostile witnesses. But considering the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW 30 Jayantilal Manilal, it has been proved that at the time when the accused was arrested, the arrest panchnama was drawn by him in presence of the panchas and at that time, abrasion injuries were found on the chest and on the left hand thumb of the accused. His shirt was found to be torn near the left side pocket and blood marks were found on the shirt. The accused was referred to Dr. Patel [PW 11] examined at exh. 34. Examining the evidence of Dr. Patel and injury certificate exh. 36, it transpires that on 6/1/2002 at 4.45 p.m., the accused was examined by him and the abrasions were found on left wrist fold and on chest of the accused. The abrasion injuries were found to be old. In his evidence, he opined that if any person tries to strangulate a victim and if victim resists the attack and in that process the injuries in the nature of abrasions by the nails of the victim are possible on the body of the assailant. 23.1. The abrasion injuries were found to be old. In his evidence, he opined that if any person tries to strangulate a victim and if victim resists the attack and in that process the injuries in the nature of abrasions by the nails of the victim are possible on the body of the assailant. 23.1. The prosecution has examined FSL expert, PW 24 Mr. Pathak and considering his evidence, he had examined the articles forwarded to him by the Investigating Officer including the shirt of the accused and considering the evidence of Mr. Pathak along with the serological report exh. 14, it transpires that the blood group of the deceased was “B” group and the blood stains found on the shirt of the accused contained the blood of the deceased of group “B”. 23.2. It is pertinent to note that PW 9 Omprakash, the first informant, in his testimony stated that when the shirt of the accused was shown to him, he categorically stated that the shirt belonged to the accused and the accused had put on the same shirt at the time of the incident. Thus, though the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama of the accused turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case that the shirt of the accused was recovered in their presence, yet considering the evidence of PW 9 Omprakash and PW 30 PI Suthar, the prosecution successfully proved that the blood stained and torn out shirt which was put on by the accused at the time of his arrest was the shirt which the accused had put on at the time of the incident and as stated above, the blood of the deceased was found on the shirt. Over and above this, the nail marks which caused abrasions on the body of the accused came to be seen by the Medical Officer Dr. Patel. 24. All the above referred glaring circumstances emerged from the record of the case, were put to the accused by the trial Court when his further statement was recorded under section 313 of the Code. The accused merely denied the existence of those circumstances. The fact that the dead-body of his wife was found from the room which was jointly occupied by him and his deceased wife, the accused did not offer any explanation during the course of his further statement. The accused merely denied the existence of those circumstances. The fact that the dead-body of his wife was found from the room which was jointly occupied by him and his deceased wife, the accused did not offer any explanation during the course of his further statement. The fact that during lunch break he went to his room for lunch and was in the company of his deceased wife and soon thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was found by the witnesses and when this circumstance was put to the accused in his further statement, no explanation was forthcoming. No explanation is also forthcoming about the abrasion injury by nails on his body as well as find of blood of deceased on his shirt and tearing of his shirt. Section 106 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In the instant case, as stated above, during his further statement under section 313 of the Code, the only defence raised by the accused was of total denial and no explanation was forthcoming from him regarding the glaring circumstances emerged on record from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 24.1. Even the conduct, soon after the incident, of the accused, is worth considering. As emerged from the evidence of the co-workers examined by the prosecution, it emerges that the accused was found by them to be under shock and was found disturbed and perturbed. The solitary evidence of conduct or the mere circumstance of such abnormal conduct of the accused may not be sufficient enough to record his conviction, but if seen in context with the other circumstances proved on record, the abnormal conduct of the accused in that case provides additional link to the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. 25. On re-appreciation, re-evaluation, re-analysis and close scrutiny of the evidence, according to us, the circumstances pitted by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, are duly established and all the circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively form a complete chain that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and there cannot be another view than the view expressed by the trial Court. 26. 26. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, as according to us, no other finding, conclusion or order except the one reached by the trial Court is possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on the facts and in the circumstances emerging from the record of the case. 27. In the wake of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. The instant appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. The result is that the judgment and order dated 15/01/2005 rendered in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2, Surat, convicting and sentencing the accused for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, is hereby confirmed and maintained. Muddamal articles to be disposed of as per the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order.