JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Padampur in S.T. Case No. 47/ 6 of 2002 (S.T. Case No. 20 of 2004). 2. The case of the prosecution as per the FIR lodged by Kumuda Meher, P.W.6 is that in the morning of 03.09.2001 at about 6 A.M. he went to Bariket Market to sell clothes. While he left for the market, his wife Rupa Meher (deceased) and two sons, namely, Anirudha Mehera (P.W.4) and Deba Meher (P.W.5) were present in the house. At about 11.30 AM, when he returned from market, he noticed a gathering in front of his house and his wife was lying dead. He came to know from his younger son (P.W.4) that about 10:30 AM when he was going to open his shop, he had seen the accused talking to his mother (deceased), his wife used to sell rice at home and the accused was taking rice from her on credit basis and there was an outstanding of Rs. 1200/-. He came to know from one Brahma Meher and other neighbors that the accused having stained with blood throughout his body, wearing a black full pant and holding something in his hand, was running through the paddy field towards DHOBA TUTHA. He had also wrapped a cloth in his right hand. When said Brahma Meher enquired from the accused about the presence of blood on his body, he went away without saying anything to him. On verification, the informant found a gold chain weighing 1.5 gm of his wife missing from her neck, there were blood stains in the house and verandah and the cover of a knife was lying there. Thereafter, he lodged report before Padampur police station and on receipt of the same, police visited the spot, registered the case and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, police seized the wearing apparels of the accused as well as the deceased and one gold chain recovered from the right side pocket of the accused, made inquest over the dead body and sent the same for postmortem examination and also sent the exhibits through Court for chemical examination. Ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 394/397/302, IPC. 3. Ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 394/397/302, IPC. 3. The plea of the appellant is of complete denial of the allegation. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses including the doctor and the Investigating Officer and exhibited nineteen documents. The defense has examined none in support of its plea. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 coupled with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.13) and his opinion in postmortem report (Ext.12) found the accused-appellant guilty under Sections 394/397/ 302, IPC. The trial Court sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 394, IPC read with Section 397, IPC. It also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302, IPC. 6. Mrs. C. Kasturi, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the order of conviction mainly on the following grounds; (i) The order of conviction has been passed basing on the circumstantial evidence, though the chain of circumstances is not complete; (ii) there are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; (iii) leading to discovery has not been proved by the prosecution; (iv) P.W.3, who is a vital witness, does not support the prosecution cases; (v) there is no evidence that the accused was last seen together with the deceased; and (vi) the prosecution is guilty of suppression of material fact having not explained the injury on the person of the accused. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that ail the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution complete the chain and there is no missing link. The deceased and accused were last seen together by P.W.4 when he left the house. The accused was seen by P.Ws.1 and 2, who are neighbors of the deceased, when he was running with blood stains on his person wearing a black full pant. When P.W.1 enquired about the presence of blood on his body, the accused without saying anything went away. A gold chain was recovered from the right side pocket of the accused. The accused was seen by P.Ws.1 and 2, who are neighbors of the deceased, when he was running with blood stains on his person wearing a black full pant. When P.W.1 enquired about the presence of blood on his body, the accused without saying anything went away. A gold chain was recovered from the right side pocket of the accused. While in police custody, the accused confessed his guilt in presence of the witnesses, led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed his wearing apparels and the weapon of offence and gave discovery of the same. From the chemical examination report (Ext.19) it reveals that blood of human origin was present on the weapon of offence as well as the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 8. Admittedly, the whole case against the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature the same has to be examined with the touch stone of the five golden principles, otherwise known as the 'Pachsheel', laid down by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra. By applying the ratio decided in the said case, this Court has also rendered a judgment in Arjun Teli v. State (DSREF No. 1 of 2010 and CRLA No. 133 of 2010). The following are the five principles enshrined by the Apex Court: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, as distinguished from '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 explained 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 inhuman probability the act must have been done by the accused. 9. 9. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now see whether the prosecution has been able to satisfy them. P.W.1 has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 11.00 am he was taking bath in the river. At that time, he saw the accused running with bipod stain wrapping a cloth on his hand which was also stained with blood. In cross-examination, he stated that he knew the accused earlier and that the blood was oozing out of his left hand. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 10.30 am he was returning after taking bath from a nearby Nala. At that time, he saw the accused proceeding towards the river having blood stains on his bare body. A cloth was wrapped on his right hand which was stained with blood. P.W.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, he has been declared hostile. P.W.4, who is the son of the deceased, deposed that while the accused was taking to his mother (deceased), he left for the market and on return found her mother lying on the ground inside the house sustaining bleeding injury on her head. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused used to come to their house daily for purchasing rice. P.W.5 deposed that on the date of occurrence he left the house for his shop at about 8.00 am. and at about 10.30 am he was informed by one of his neighbors that his mother was lying in front of their house sustaining bleeding injury. P.W.6 is the husband of the deceased. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that he learnt from his son Anirudha that during the morning hours, the accused had come to their house as usual and was taking to his wife (deceased). He further stated that the accused used to purchase rice from his house and also used to take money at times. They had a due of Rs. 1200/- from the accused. He also stated that he noticed that one gold chain weighing about one and half tola, which his wife had worn was missing from her neck. Police conducted inquest over the dead body in his presence: He proved the inquest report (Ext.2) and the FIR (Ext.1) loaded by him as well as his signatures appearing therein marked as Exts.2/1 and 2/1. Police conducted inquest over the dead body in his presence: He proved the inquest report (Ext.2) and the FIR (Ext.1) loaded by him as well as his signatures appearing therein marked as Exts.2/1 and 2/1. In cross-examination, he stated that there were two injuries on the belly of his wife and that her. wearing clothes were stained with blood. P.W.7 deposed that he was called by the police at the time of inquest. He proved his signature in the inquest report marked Ext.2/ 2. He further deposed that there were two injuries on the belly of the deceased and the entire body was stained with blood. P.W.8 is a witness to the leading to discovery and seizure of the weapon of offence and the wearing apparels of the accused. He deposed that while in police custody the accused led the police to the place of concealment and gave recovery of a knife and two shirts kept below the earth saying that he had committed the murder of the deceased. P.W.8 also stated to have helped the police in digging out the materials from the spot, as shown by the accused. He further deposed that the accused himself admitted his guilt and led the police to recover one full pant and one cloth stained with blood kept hidden in the premises of a MATHA. P.W.8 proved the statement of the accused recorded vide Exts.4 and 5 and his signatures therein marked Exts.4/ 1 and 5/1. He also proved the seizure of knife and dress materials of the accused vide seizure lists Exts.6 and 7 and his signatures therein marked Exts.6/1 and 7/1. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are respectively the police Constable and Havildar who accompanied the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem. P.W.11 deposed that on the date of occurrence she and her husband were staying in the house of the information on rent in the up-stair. At the time of occurrence, she heard the deceased shouting 'MARI GALI MARI GALI'. Hearing such shout, she came to the down stair and found the deceased requiring water, as she was in a pool of blood by sustaining cut injury. She gave water but before taking water she died. P.W.12 is the doctor, who examined the accused on police requisition and found as many as four injuries which are simple in nature. Hearing such shout, she came to the down stair and found the deceased requiring water, as she was in a pool of blood by sustaining cut injury. She gave water but before taking water she died. P.W.12 is the doctor, who examined the accused on police requisition and found as many as four injuries which are simple in nature. P.W.13 is the doctor, who examined the weapon of offence, conducted post-portem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries. (i) Incised wound of size 1 and 1/2" X 1/2" X 1" depth on left upper arm medially at the junction of upper two-third and lower one-third. (ii) Stab wound in the left nypo-cnonanum or abdomen below the costal margin of size 1"X1/2"X2". (iii) Stab wound of size 1 "X 1/2X2" in the eight intercostals space of the left side of the chest. (iv) Stab wound of size 1 "X1/2"X1 and 1/2" one ninth intercostals space of right side of chest anteriority; (v) Incised wound right thigh laterally of size 1 and 1/2"X1/2"X1/4 and (vi) Incised wound dorsal aspect of right hand of size 1/2"X1/2"X1/2". He opined that on post-mortem of thorax, he found the stab wounds Nos.(iii) and (iv) described above cutting the chest wall. From examination of the abdomen, he found the stab wound No.(ii) cutting the abdominal wall. The cause of death was due to both external and internal hemorrhage causing shock as a result of the multiple stabs and incised wound. The injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death and could be caused by M.O.I. P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, deposed that he conducted raid and arrested the accused. During personal search of the accused, he found one gold chain from his right side pocket having a mark of KM on the hook of the chain. He identified the same in Court and proved the seizure list marked Ext.3 and his signature Ext.3/1. He further deposed that while in custody the accused confessed his guilt in presence of him and the witnesses saying that he had committed murder and robbery, which was recorded by him u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. He identified the same in Court and proved the seizure list marked Ext.3 and his signature Ext.3/1. He further deposed that while in custody the accused confessed his guilt in presence of him and the witnesses saying that he had committed murder and robbery, which was recorded by him u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place of concealment and gave recovery of one white color blood stained full shirt, one sky blue color blood stained full shirt and a blood stained knife from inside the paddy filed of Durga Pattnaik near Dhoba Tutha. 9. On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the accused was last seen together with the deceased by P.W.4 at about 9.30 a.m. and on the same day at 10.30 a.m. the deceased was found dead. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the accused running towards the Nala having blood stains in his hand which was wrapped with a cloth. The police recovered a gold chain (M.O.IX) from the right side pant pocket of the accused which was identified by P.W.6 to be of the deceased. The accused while in police custody confessed his guilt, led the Investigating Officer P.W.14 and the independent witness P.W.8 to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon of offence and his wearing apparels. The doctor P.W.13 on examination of the weapon of offence (M.O.I.) opined that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by the said M.O.I. The chemical examination report Ext.19 reveals that blood stains of human origin were present on the weapon of offence and the wearing apparels of the accused and in regard to that no plausible explanation has been offered by the accused. The prosecution has been able to establish that in order to rob the gold chain, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased by using a knife whose length is more than one foot and is a deadly weapon. All these circumstances taken together conclusively establish that it is the appellant and appellant alone who has committed the murder of the deceased and robbed off her gold chain by using M.O.I., which is a deadly weapon and, as such, he is liable for commission of the offence under Sections 302/397, IPC. All these circumstances taken together conclusively establish that it is the appellant and appellant alone who has committed the murder of the deceased and robbed off her gold chain by using M.O.I., which is a deadly weapon and, as such, he is liable for commission of the offence under Sections 302/397, IPC. Since the appellant has been convicted u/s 397, IPC, for the selfsame act, his conviction for commission of the offence u/s 394, IPC is bad in law. 10. In the result therefore the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302/397, IPC is confirmed and that u/s 394, IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302, IPC, and in that view of the matter no separate sentence is imposed for his conviction u/s 397, IPC. 11. The Jail Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the modification of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence to the extent indicated above. B.K. Nayak, J. 12. I agree.