Judgment : A.P. LAVANDE, J: 1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2/6/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji in Sessions Case No.19/2006 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount on being recovered has been ordered to be paid to Rashida Hussein, the wife of the deceased. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: On 5/6/2006 at about 13.35 hours telephonic information was received at Panaji Police Station that there was an incident of assault near Mahalaxmi Temple, Boca de Vaca Panaji. Accordingly, P.I., M.K. Gaonkar, P.S.I. S.S. Narvenkar and the staff rushed to the spot. At the spot which was near Vatsal Bhavan near Mahalaxmi temple, Panaji they noticed Gulzar Hussein Laxmidhar lying in front of a building next to his residence in a pool of blood with injuries on his head and leg. He was immediately shifted at GMC Bambolim for treatment. The injured was found medically unfit for recording his statement and he expired on the same day at 3.35 p.m.. Idrish Gulzar Laxmidhar, PW 21, the son of the deceased lodged F.I.R against the accused vide Crime No.140/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The scene of offence Panchanama and Inquest Panchanama were conducted. Post Mortem was also conducted on the dead body of the deceased and his clothes were also attached and sealed. The investigation revealed that the accused and deceased stayed in the same locality and the accused was friendly with Farhana, the daughter of the victim when she was going to school. On 25/11/2003, the accused registered his marriage with Farhana at Civil Registration office Tiswadi without the knowledge of parents of Farhana. Subsequently, Farhana started ignoring and avoiding the accused on account of which the accused started harassing Farhana and her family members. During this time, Farhana consented to get married to a boy in Mumbai. The accused realized Farhana's intention and he started threatening Farhana and her family members of causing physical injuries. Pursuant to the report filed by Farhana's family members, a chapter case was registered against accused. During this time, Farhana consented to get married to a boy in Mumbai. The accused realized Farhana's intention and he started threatening Farhana and her family members of causing physical injuries. Pursuant to the report filed by Farhana's family members, a chapter case was registered against accused. It is the case of the prosecution that as Farhana and her parents were not responding to the attempts made by the accused to get Farhana as his legally wedded wife, the accused with premeditation assaulted Gulzar on 5/6/2006 with a base ball bat near his house when he was returning home for lunch, causing grievous injuries on his head and left leg leading to his death. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused ran away from the spot and went to Arabo, Pernem on motorcycle bearing no.GA5 07-B- 3110. The accused was arrested on the same day at 23.00 hours at Arabo, Pernem from the house of his sister. The clothes worn by the accused at the time of commission of the crime were attached and sealed under panchanama. The motorcycle was also attached. The base ball bat used by the accused in commission of the offence was discovered at the instance of the accused and the same was attached and sealed. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Sessions Court which was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Panaji, which was registered as Sessions Case no.19 /2006. In Sessions case no.19/2006, the accused was charged for offence punishable under sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and produced several documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C was recorded. The defence of the accused was of bare denial and false implantation. The accused also took up a defence that he was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time and that he was at Arabo Pernem. In support of his case, the accused examined one defence witness Nikhil Naik as DW.1, who also produced documents. The defence of the accused was of bare denial and false implantation. The accused also took up a defence that he was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time and that he was at Arabo Pernem. In support of his case, the accused examined one defence witness Nikhil Naik as DW.1, who also produced documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, held that the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was proved against the accused but the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C was not proved and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 3. Mr. Lotlikar, leaned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. According to the learned counsel, the evidence led by the prosecution at the most raises suspicion against the accused, but suspicion however strong, by itself is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. According to the learned counsel, the reliance placed by the Trial Judge on the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is wholly unreliable. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution witnesses particularly the version of Idrish, PW.21 and Farhana, PW.28 who claim to have seen the accused near the deceased at the time of the incident is wholly unreliable in as much as these witnesses could not have seen the accused near the dead body having regard to the location of the flat from which they claim to have seen the accused. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of Sidhart Redkar, PW.10 and Yogesh Naik, PW.11 who the prosecution claims to be the friends of the accused is wholly unreliable and having regard to the delay in recording their statements, it is evident that they are planted witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that the version of Yogesh Naik, PW.11 that he received telephone calls from the accused is not corroborated in as much as the prosecution had not deliberately taken steps to get from the telephone company the details of the telephone calls made by the accused at about 1.30 p.m. on 5/6/2006. Learned counsel further submitted that the version of Yogesh Naik, PW.11 that he received telephone calls from the accused is not corroborated in as much as the prosecution had not deliberately taken steps to get from the telephone company the details of the telephone calls made by the accused at about 1.30 p.m. on 5/6/2006. According to the learned counsel, the extra judicial confessions alleged to have been made by the accused are also unbelievable and as such no reliance could have been placed on the alleged extra judicial confessions alleged to have been made by the accused. According to learned counsel, presence of the accused at the time of the alleged commission of the offence has not been established and a deliberate attempt has been made by the investigating agency to establish that the accused was seen running away from the spot after the alleged assault on the accused. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of the two witnesses Jyotendra Shah, PW4, Milind Ramani, PW6 is quite natural and the same clearly belies the version of family members of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has chosen not to examine Amlani, the owner of the flat in which the informant claims to have been present at the time of commission of the offence. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution case that the accused had given a call to PW.11 is un-reliable in as much as PW.11 is a planted witness. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused cannot be accepted and the same is fabricated in as much as the panchas are related to deceased and the prosecution has not disclosed as to in what manner the panchas for the recovery were procured. According to the learned counsel, the panchanama in respect of the discovery of the weapon has been fabricated to falsely implicate the accused and having regard to the fact that the pancha had not deposed regarding the statement made by the accused, the entire discovery becomes suspicious and unreliable. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged discovery was from the open space and having regard to the fact that the pancha was not knowing the language in which the statement was allegedly made by the accused, the alleged discovery relied upon by the prosecution cannot be believed. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged discovery was from the open space and having regard to the fact that the pancha was not knowing the language in which the statement was allegedly made by the accused, the alleged discovery relied upon by the prosecution cannot be believed. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of the doctor also does not advance the case of the prosecution in as much as the weapon was shown to him for the first time in the Court and not during the course of investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution did not seek any report in respect of the hair found on the weapon which was seized and the C.A. Report also discloses that the blood group found on the weapon could not be ascertained. Learned counsel further submitted that merely because the relations between the accused and the deceased and his family were strained, this by itself would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charge of murder in the absence of any cogent evidence having been led by the prosecution in support of the charge. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has suppressed material documents, more particularly the statement of calls from Idea Celluar Company. According to the learned counsel the delay in lodging the F.I.R certainly creates doubt in the prosecution case and supports the case of the accused that he has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that he had got married with the daughter of the deceased and the deceased and his family members opposed the marriage. According to the learned counsel, the delay in recording the statements of the two witnesses under Section 164, Cr.P.C. viz. PW.10 and PW.11 is fatal to the prosecution case and creates doubt about the versions of these two witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that group of the blood present on the pant of the accused has not been identified and as such, mere presence of the blood does not establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. Learned counsel, therefore submitted that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently deserves to be acquitted for the offence for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Learned counsel, therefore submitted that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently deserves to be acquitted for the offence for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Lotlikar relied upon the following judgments: (i) Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210 . (ii) Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748 . (iii) Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008, AIR SCW 576. (iv) Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438 . 5. Per contra, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution clearly proves the complicity of the accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased Shri Gulzar. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish strong motive on the part of the accused and the strained relations between the accused and deceased on account of opposition of the deceased and his family members to the marriage of the accused with the daughter of the deceased. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the accused cannot be faulted since they are borne out from the evidence on record. Mr. Ferreira further submitted that the evidence of the informant, his sister and mother is natural and as such, inspires confidence. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of Mr. J. Shah, PW.4 and Milind Ramani, PW.6 does not efface the evidence of the informant, Idrish Laxmidhar,PW.21, Farhana Laxmidhar, PW.28 and Rashida Hussein,PW.15. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused has taken a false defence that he was not at Panaji in the morning of 5/6/2006, which is clearly belied by the telephone calls statement produced by the prosecution which establishes that the accused had made calls from Panaji till 10.19 a.m. on 5/6/2006. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has been able to establish discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused and the same cannot be said to be unreliable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has been able to establish discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused and the same cannot be said to be unreliable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, nonexamination of Amlani, the owner of the flat in which the informant was present at the time of commission of the crime, cannot be said to be fatal. He further submitted that considering the fact that the deceased was in hospital, there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R by son of the deceased and the delay of few hours in lodging the F.I.R is quite natural, considering the factual situation at the relevant time. According to the Public Prosecutor, the evidence led by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the accused in commission of the murder of the deceased and therefore no interference is warranted with impugned judgment and order. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ferreira placed reliance upon the following judgments: i) State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR (99) SCC 1776 ii) Sucha Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 . iii) State of Orissa Vs. Dibakar Naik and ors., 2002 (5) SCC 323 . iv) State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj and anr 2000 (1)SCC 247 . v) Sukhar Vs. State of U.P., (1999) 9 SCC 507 . vi) Sitaram Marandi Vs. State of Jharkand, 2011 CRI L.J. 147. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon by both sides. 8. In order to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased Gulzar, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances: i) The motive. ii) The presence of the accused at the scene of offence just before and after the incident. iii) Conduct of the accused i.e. running towards Altinho slope with a weapon in his hand. iv) The discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. v) The extra judicial confessions made by the accused. vi) The attachment of the blood stained jeans pant from the accused. vii) The death of the deceased was homicidal. viii) False plea taken by the accused. ix) Spot panchanama, Arrest panchanama, Inquest panchanama, C. A. Report. etc.. 9. iv) The discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. v) The extra judicial confessions made by the accused. vi) The attachment of the blood stained jeans pant from the accused. vii) The death of the deceased was homicidal. viii) False plea taken by the accused. ix) Spot panchanama, Arrest panchanama, Inquest panchanama, C. A. Report. etc.. 9. In so far as the first circumstance i.e. motive is concerned, the prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of the three witnesses namely, Idrish Laxmidhar PW.21, Rashida Hussein,PW.15 and Farhana Gulzar, PW.28. The evidence of Idrish PW.21 discloses that on 9.5.2006, in the evening the accused threatened his mother when she was returning home saying that if his sister did not come home, the accused would kill his father. He further deposed that Farhana had filed a suit for annulment of marriage in the Court at Panaji and the accused had sent him one s.m.s on his mobile. The said message was to the effect that “20/5/2006 is your birthday and 25th last day anything can happen and all this blame come on you don't blame me. All in your hand we can make our love successful or you will lose your own who you love the most. Your promise.” He produced report (Exhibit 56) dated 9/5/2006 and deposed that it was filed at Panaji police station by late Gulzar on 10.5.2006. He further deposed that in respect a s.m.s received on 19/3/2006 threatening them to kill, they did not take it seriously. He further deposed that on 22/5/2006 when his father was returning home in the evening the accused saw his father and said to him that he would surely kill his father if his sister is not allowed to join him. These threats were given to his father below their house. On hearing his shouts, he and sister came out of their house on the first floor into the gallery and on seeing his sister the accused got more angry and removed a tube light and hit the same on his forehead and threatened in a loud voice that he would kill Gulzar. He further deposed that the accused gave ultimatum to Farhana that she had to return to him or he would kill his father. 10. He further deposed that the accused gave ultimatum to Farhana that she had to return to him or he would kill his father. 10. Farhana Gulzar, PW.28 in her deposition corroborated the version of her brother Idrish and produced the report dated 22/5/2006 lodged at Panaji Police Station in respect of the above incident which was marked as Exhibit 77. The evidence of both these witnesses in so far as incident of 22/5/2006 is concerned, is corroborated by the report dated 22/5/2006 which is a contemporaneous document. 11. Rashida Hussein, PW.15, the mother of Farhana, deposed that in May 2006 when the accused came near their house and asked her to bring her daughter and if she did not come, the accused threatened her that he would kill her husband. She further deposed about threats given by the accused on 22/5/2006 when she was outside her residence with her husband, son and daughter. She deposed that the accused came there with a tube light in his hand and broke the same on his forehead and again threatened them to decide within seven days. 12. The evidence of the above three witnesses also stands corroborated by the evidence of P.I. Mahesh Gaonkar,PW32 and of P.S.I. Brandon D'Souza PW.30 who had registered report dated 9/5/2006, (Exhibit 56) lodged by Gulzar. The evidence of Brandon D'Souza further discloses that pursuant to the report he had registered N.C case no.315/06 under Section 504 I.P.C on 30/5/2006 against the accused as per Exhibit 85 and he had forwarded the case to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate for taking action under section 107, Cr.P.C against the accused. 13. The evidence of the above witnesses which has not been shaken on the material aspects in the cross examination clearly proves that the accused agitated that the deceased and his family members were not ready to send Farhana to him, although he civilly married her in the year 2003. 14. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. but mere proof of motive would not be a ground to hold the accused guilty and enmity is a double edged weapon. 15. We shall now proceed to find out whether the prosecution has been able to establish the second and third circumstance for which the prosecution has examined several witnesses whose evidence is overlapping. 16. but mere proof of motive would not be a ground to hold the accused guilty and enmity is a double edged weapon. 15. We shall now proceed to find out whether the prosecution has been able to establish the second and third circumstance for which the prosecution has examined several witnesses whose evidence is overlapping. 16. Idrish, PW.21 who lodged the First Information Report deposed that on 5/6/2006, at around 1.30p.m., when he was studying in the room of their neighbour one D.V. Amlani, whose flat is on the same floor as their flat, he heard a shout from the accused saying “Farhana bahir yo, Tujea Bapaik hanvem marlo”. He got up and went to the gallery of the room where he was studying and when he looked down, he saw his father lying on the ground badly hurt and in a bleeding condition. He deposed that he saw the accused running away towards Altinho slope and carrying a fat danda in his hand and that his sister had also come in their gallery. He further deposed that he was in a state of shock and told his sister that their father was lying on the ground on the road side and the accused had hit him and on hearing his sister shouting, their mother came out of the house and they rushed down to the place where their father was lying on the road side. He further deposed that he saw that his father was badly inured. Thereafter, the police were called and they shifted his father to Goa Medical College hospital, where he expired on the same date. He lodged the report Exhibit 57 on the same date. He identified the base ball bat, M.O.10 as the danda which was seen in the hand of the accused. He further deposed that the accused was wearing a T-shirt and a bluish jeans pant when he was running away, but he was not able to identify the said clothes. In cross examination, he admitted that he had not stated in his complaint that around 1.30p.m.on 5/6/2006 he was sitting and studying in the room of the flat of Amlani. He deposed that he was always using the said room of Amlani from around 2002 when he was in Xth Std. In cross examination, he admitted that he had not stated in his complaint that around 1.30p.m.on 5/6/2006 he was sitting and studying in the room of the flat of Amlani. He deposed that he was always using the said room of Amlani from around 2002 when he was in Xth Std. In cross examination he stated that he had seen the accused leaving the place holding a fat danda in his hand. He further stated that since his father had died and he was in a state of shock, he might not have mentioned every detail. He further deposed that when he came out of the flat of Amlani and had seen the accused running, at that time he had noticed his father fallen on the ground but he had not noticed anyone near the spot. He deposed that when he had gone down, he had seen Jyotendra Shah, PW4 near his father and later wife of PW4 came there with ice. He also deposed that he had seen one Milind Ramani, PW.6 where his father was lying and there were some neighbours around but he had not paid any attention to them. He deposed that his mother had gone down first, followed by his sister and him and the police had reached there in 10 to 15 minutes. He further deposed that he had not given the size and colour of the danda which he had seen with the accused in his report Exhibit 57 or in his subsequent statements under Exhibits 58 and 59. He further despised that the danda was never shown to him by the Investigating Officer. 17. Farhana, PW.28 deposed that on 5/6/2006 she and her mother were in the house and her brother was studying in the adjacent room of Mr. Amlani. At around 1.30p.m., when she was in the house, she heard a loud shout from the accused saying that “Farhana bair yo Tujea Bapaik hanvem marlo”, and at that time she came in the balcony and saw the accused running towards Altinho slope holding one fat danda in his hand. Her brother Idrish who was also in the balcony was shocked and shivering and told her that the accused had assaulted their father who was lying besides the house on the ground in a bleeding condition. Her brother Idrish who was also in the balcony was shocked and shivering and told her that the accused had assaulted their father who was lying besides the house on the ground in a bleeding condition. In cross-examination she deposed that on going up the staircase and coming to the common balcony outside and facing the entrance door of her flat, on the left side of the balcony is the entry door of the flat of Amlani and this common balcony faces the tar road going from the Sai Baba temple to Altinho. She further deposed that the flat of Amlani also has a balcony towards the west and facing Pioneer building and this balcony can be entered only from the flat of Amlani. 18. Rashida Hussein, PW.15 deposed that on hearing the screams of her son, Idrish, PW.21 she went down and saw her husband lying in a pool of blood and her son told her that Sameer had assaulted her husband and had run away. 19. Jyotendra Shah, PW4 who was residing on the ground floor of Vatsal Bhavan i.e. the same building in which the informant and her family members were residing in one of the two flats on the first floor, deposed that on 5/6/2006 at around 1.30p.m, he was watching the news on Television in his house and when he came in his gallery, he noticed one male person fallen on the side of the road and he went inside his flat. He further deposed that after 10 minutes he came out and saw that the said person was till lying at the spot and he went near the spot and recognized the person as his neighbour Gulzar whose mouth was bleeding. He further deposed that he then dialed no.100 and informed the police and the police reached there within 10 minutes and shifted Gulzar to hospital. In cross-examination he deposed that when he first saw Gulzar no one was around him and even the second time when he went near Gulzar, no one was around him. He further deposed that he could not remember exactly as he was in shock on seeing the blood. However, the further deposed that when he went there for the second time, no body was near Gulzar and that he had not heard any other sounds as his television was on. 20. He further deposed that he could not remember exactly as he was in shock on seeing the blood. However, the further deposed that when he went there for the second time, no body was near Gulzar and that he had not heard any other sounds as his television was on. 20. Milind Ramani, PW.6 who is an Architect having his office in Devashree Towers building on the side of Vatsal Bhavan deposed that on 5/6/2006, he was returning to his office at around 1.30p.m. and when he was parking his car, he had seen one person lying on the side of the road below Devashree Towers and he thought that he was a drunkard fallen on the road. He deposed that after he got down from his car and looked at that person, he recognized the person as Gulzar. He called up the Gates from his mobile but he could not get through. He noticed that Gulzar was lying unconscious and at that time he had not noticed the injuries. He further noticed that Gulzar had vomited blood. He then went to his office and phoned the police. In cross-examination, he deposed that when he had reached near Gulzar, no one else was around the body of Gulzar at 1.30p.m. Thereafter, the police reached the spot at 2p.m.. He saw Jyotendra Shah, PW4 near the body of Gulzar and he heard PW.4 calling out to Gulzar's wife, but as no one had come out from her house, after 2-3 minutes PW.4 had sent some one to inform her that Gulzar had fallen on the road side. 21. Upon critical analysis of the evidence of the above witnesses, we find that the version of Idrish, PW21 that at the relevant time he was studying in the room of the flat of Amlani is corroborated by Faranha, PW.28. No doubt such a statement was not made by Idrish in F.I.R, but it is the case of Idrish himself that when the report was lodged, his father had already died and he was in state of shock and might not have mentioned every detail. The evidence led by the prosecution clearly establishes that Idrish had come to the spot where his father was lying and that he had seen his father seriously injured and later on the same day he expired in Goa Medical hospital. The evidence led by the prosecution clearly establishes that Idrish had come to the spot where his father was lying and that he had seen his father seriously injured and later on the same day he expired in Goa Medical hospital. Considering this factual background the version of PW.21 that he had not given all the details in the F.I.R cannot be disbelieved. Moreover, F.I.R is not an encyclopedia of events as has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. The versions of Idrish, PW.21 and Farahna, PW.28 that at the relevant time P.W 21 was studying in the room of Amlani cannot be brushed aside on the ground that there is improvement made in order to establish the fact that he had seen the accused running away from the spot. 22. Moreover, Rashida PW.15 deposed that on hearing the screams of her son she went down and saw her husband lying in pool of blood and PW21 had seen the accused who had assaulted her husband and he ran away. No doubt, the evidence of Jyotendra Shah, PW.4, Milind Ramani, PW6 gives the impression that PW21, PW28 and Pw15 had come to the spot after considerable length of time when they had reached the spot much earlier. However, it is to be noted that the version of Milind Ramani, PW6 that he had heard Jyotendra Shah, PW4 calling to Gulzar's wife but non one had come from her house and after 2-3 minutes PW4 had sent some one to inform that Gulzar had fallen on the road side appears to be an exaggeration, as rightly held by the trial Court since this is not the case of P.W4 himself. 23. In our considered opinion, the evidence of the two witnesses that is Idrish, PW.21 and Farahna, PW.28 cannot be jettisoned on the ground that Jyotendra Shah, PW4 and Milind Ramani, PW.6 claim that they were the one who had seen the deceased lying in bleeding condition first and at the relevant time, no one was around the deceased. 24. In our considered opinion, the evidence of Idrish, PW.21 and Frahana, PW.28 clearly proves the presence of the accused on the spot at the time of commission of the offence and that the accused was seen running away from the spot with a fat danda in his hand. 24. In our considered opinion, the evidence of Idrish, PW.21 and Frahana, PW.28 clearly proves the presence of the accused on the spot at the time of commission of the offence and that the accused was seen running away from the spot with a fat danda in his hand. No doubt, it was expected of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of D.V. Amlani who was residing in the neighborhood of the deceased and in whose flat PW.21 claimed that he was studying. But this lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer is not such as to discredit the version of Idrish, PW.21 and Faranha,PW.28 that at the relevant time PW21 was studying in the room of the flat of D.V. Amlani. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of offence and also the conduct of the accused that he was seen running towards Altinho with a danda in his hand. Therefore, we have no hesitation that the prosecution has been able to establish by cogent evidence the second and third circumstance. 25. The fourth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. In order to prove this fact the prosecution has examined Quresh Sodawala PW.19 who was a pancha to the panchanama of discovery and attachment of the weapon. His evidence discloses that at the relevant time he was a law book seller in Goa and he had visited Panaji police station on 6/6/2006 and he was requested by P.I. Mahesh Gaonkar to act as a pancha and the second pancha by name Idrees Haazik was also present in the cabin of the P.I. He further deposed that the P.I. told him that the accused is going to show the place where he had thrown one base ball bat. His evidence further discloses that thereafter both the panchas sat in a jeep driven by the police driver. The accused was speaking something in Konkani which language he did not understand, but he felt that he was showing the directions to the driver of the jeep. The jeep passed the Mahalaxmi temple and proceeded on the road behind the temple which road was leading to Altinho. The accused was speaking something in Konkani which language he did not understand, but he felt that he was showing the directions to the driver of the jeep. The jeep passed the Mahalaxmi temple and proceeded on the road behind the temple which road was leading to Altinho. The driver of the jeep stopped the jeep near Chari's house as per direction shown by the accused, the accused uttered something in Konkani and pointed out some flowery bushes and also pointed out one stick lying in the bushes, which was a base ball bat and the accused went and removed the bat and gave it to the P.I. M. Gaonkar. The bat was shown to the panchas. He noticed red spot on the bat and some hair. P.I. Gaonkar said that it was human blood of Gulzar. The bat was then wrapped in a white colour cloth which was stitched and thereafter signatures of panchas were taken on the cloth wrapping. The cloth wrapping was then wax sealed. He further deposed that photographs were also taken when he left the police station and also at the spot. The panchanama was written in English and explained to both of them and the accused. He identified his signature on the panchanama Exhibit 51. He also identified the base ball bat, M.O.10 as the bat which was attached and recovered from the bushes. He also identified some photographs taken during the course of panchanama. In the cross examination the version of this witness that the accused led the P.I. Gaonkar and panchas to the spot near Chari's house and he took out the base ball bat which was later attached and sealed has not been shaken. 26. The evidence of this witness also stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of the I.O. P.I. M. Gaonkar, PW.32 who also deposed on similar lines. However, P.I. Goankar has stated that the accused had given information that he would show the base ball bat which he had thrown on the way towards Altinho in the presence of panchas and himself. Perusal of the panchanama, Exhibit 51 discloses that in terms of the said panchanama the disclosure statement was made by the accused in the presence of both panchas. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Perusal of the panchanama, Exhibit 51 discloses that in terms of the said panchanama the disclosure statement was made by the accused in the presence of both panchas. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Lotlikar that in view of the evidence of Quresh Sodawala, PW.19 that it was P.I. Gaonkar who had told him that the accused had made disclosure statement leading to disclosure of the weapon at the instance of the accused, the pancha cannot be termed as a witness for the disclosure statement. There is variance between the evidence of Quresh, PW.19 and P.I. M. Gaonkar PW.32 regarding disclosure made by the accused. It is well settled that in order to prove discovery at the instance of the accused the prosecution has to prove the statement made by the accused leading to the disclosure as well as the discovery of the weapon used in commission of the crime. In view of the variance in the testimonies of the two witnesses, we find it difficult to place reliance upon disclosure statement made by the accused as deposed by Investigating Officer. However, we also find merit in the submission of Mr. Ferreira that in the event it is held that discovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused is not proved on account of the fact of exact disclosure statement made by the accused, attachment of the weapon made at the instance of the accused can be considered and is relevant as the conduct of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Adminsitration), (supra).In the said case the Apex Court has held that the evidence of the circumstance simpliciter, that an accused led the police officer and pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might have been used in the commission of the offence were found hidden, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act. 27. The evidence of the above two witnesses also stands corroborated by the panchanama Exhibit 51 to the extent that it was the accused who had shown the I.O and the panchas the place where the weapon was lying. 27. The evidence of the above two witnesses also stands corroborated by the panchanama Exhibit 51 to the extent that it was the accused who had shown the I.O and the panchas the place where the weapon was lying. Considering the place from which the weapon was found it cannot be said that it was in open place since it was found in the bushes and the seizure of the weapon was made on 6/6/2006 i.e. on the next day of the commission of the offence. Moreover, the evidence of the two witnesses also stands corroborated by the photographs which have been identified by PW.19 in which the accused is shown initially at the police station and on the spot with the weapon. There is one more circumstance which lends in corroboration to the fact that the weapon was pointed out by the accused. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused was specifically asked questions regarding the photographs taken at the police station and also on the spot pointing out to the base ball bat in the bushes and thereafter removing the same from the bushes. In answer to question nos.102 to 104, the accused has not disputed his presence at the police station and on the spot but stated that he was directed by P.I. Gaonkar to stand and point out to the bushes and it was the version of the accused that at that time the photographs were taken. We find it extremely difficult to accept this version of the accused which suggests that the I.O. Mr. Gaonkar already knew the place where the weapon was lying and a show of recovery of the weapon was made at the instance of the accused. No doubt, as stated above, since the prosecution has not been able to prove the exact disclosure statement made by the accused in the police station leading to the discovery of the weapon, the recovery of the weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be said to be proved, but the cogent evidence led by the prosecution clearly proves that it was the accused who led the I.O. and the panchas to the spot where the weapon i.e. the base ball bat was lying and the same was found in the bushes and thereafter seized and sealed in the presence of the panchas. Therefore, in our opinion, though the prosecution has not been able to establish discovery of the weapon pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused yet the fact that the weapon was pointed out by the accused clearly proves his conduct which is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand (supra). 28. The fifth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the extra judicial confessions made by the accused. The evidence of Idrish Laxmidhar, PW21 and Farhana PW.28 discloses that at about 1.30p.m. when he was studying in the room of his neighbour, D.V. Amlani, the accused shouted saying “Farhanabhair yo, tujea bapaik hanvem marlo”(Farhana, come out, I have killed your father). No doubt, such a statement is not found in the first Information Report lodged by Idrish on the same day, but the fact remains that the F.I.R was lodged on the same day, soon after the death of his father and as such, this omission in the F.I.R is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that F.I.R is not an encyclopedia of events and considering the factual background in the present case, the omission in the F.I.R cannot be said to be fatal. The Trial Court upon appreciation of his evidence has found that he was not a planted witness. The Trial Court had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witness during his deposition and as such, in the absence of any good reason to disbelieve his testimony, we do not find any ground to discard the version of this witness regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused to him, soon after the commission of the offence. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish through the evidence of PW.21 and PW.28 the extra judicial confession made by the accused. 29. The prosecution has also relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused to Sidhart Redkar, PW10. His evidence clearly establishes that on the date of the incident, the accused had called on the mobile of Yogesh, PW.11 and he received a call and when he inquired with the accused as to what he wanted, the accused told him that he had killed Gulzar and disconnected the call. His evidence clearly establishes that on the date of the incident, the accused had called on the mobile of Yogesh, PW.11 and he received a call and when he inquired with the accused as to what he wanted, the accused told him that he had killed Gulzar and disconnected the call. The version of this witness which is corroborated also by his statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C clearly proves that the accused had also made extra judicial confession to Sidhart, PW.10. 30. It is pertinent to note that the version of Sidhart that the accused was his friend has not been seriously challenged in the cross examination. We find it difficult to accept the defence version that this witness has falsely implicated the accused in the commission of a ghastly crime. Moreover, his statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and as such, we find it difficult to accept that this witness as well as Yogesh, PW.11 were planted by the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused. Nothing has been brought on record in the cross examination of Sidhart as to why he would falsely implicate the accused in commission of a ghastly crime although he was his friend. The version of Sidhart, PW.10 that the accused gave him a ring also stands corroborated by the evidence of Yogesh, PW.11. 31. At this stage, we would deal with the argument of Mr. Lotlikar that the Investigating Officer ought to have attached the mobile of Yogesh, PW.11 and the fact that the same was not attached clearly raises a suspicion about the evidence of the two witnesses namely Sidhart, PW.10 and Yogesh, PW.11. No doubt, it was expected of the Investigating Officer to have attached the mobile of Yogesh PW.11. to seek corroboration of the version of Sidhart and Yogesh, but this fact by itself would not be sufficient to discredit the evidence of both the witnesses which after being tested on the touchstone of probability inspires confidence. In our considered opinion, their evidence which inspires confidence clearly proves the extra judicial confession made by the accused to Sidharth, PW.10. to seek corroboration of the version of Sidhart and Yogesh, but this fact by itself would not be sufficient to discredit the evidence of both the witnesses which after being tested on the touchstone of probability inspires confidence. In our considered opinion, their evidence which inspires confidence clearly proves the extra judicial confession made by the accused to Sidharth, PW.10. Mere delay on the part of the Magistrate in recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C of P.W10 and PW.11 by itself would not be fatal and the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be discarded upon being tested on the touchstone of probability. Thus, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish the fifth circumstance. 32. The sixth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the attachment of the blood stained jeans pant from the accused which stands proved by the evidence of Anant Dhargalkar, PW.20 and the C.A. Report. PW.20 deposed that he was called by P.I. Mahesh Goankar at Aroba, Pernem on 5/6/2006 to act as a pancha and there was another pancha by name Laxman Harmalkar who had come there soon after he reached at the spot near the temple. A person who disclosed his name as Ramnath Verekar and who was identified by the witness in the court was present there wearing one orange coloured half T-shirt and a blue colour jeans pant. One of his relatives was present who gave him another set of clothes and he was asked to remove the T-shirt and the jeans pant which he was wearing and the same were handed over to the police. There were blood stains on the right leg of the jeans pant. The clothes were attached and sealed in separate polythene bags and then in separate envelopes. Thereafter, the panchas signed on the same. He further deposed that a Hero Honda motorcycle was also attached under the panchanama. The witness identified his signatures at the arrest and attachment panchanama at Exhibit 53 and also identified the T-shirt as M.O.7 and blue colour jeans pant as M.O.8. In cross examination, he stated that there were one or two blood stains of about 1 cm length on the right leg of the jeans pant. The evidence of this witness on material aspects has not been shaken and the same also stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of I.O. Mahesh Gaonkar, PW.32. In cross examination, he stated that there were one or two blood stains of about 1 cm length on the right leg of the jeans pant. The evidence of this witness on material aspects has not been shaken and the same also stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of I.O. Mahesh Gaonkar, PW.32. Moreover, Exhibit 104, the report of Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory proves that the blood was detected on the jeans pant which was sent for analysis. No doubt, the group of the blood detected on the jeans pant could not be ascertained. But this fact by itself would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution evidence that the blood was detected on the jeans pant. In the case of Sattatiya@ Satish Rajanna Kartalia (supra) reliedupon by Mr. Lotlikar, human blood was found on the clothes and weapon used but the same could not be linked with blood of deceased and the Apex Court observed that this was a serious lacuna in the prosecution story. The Apex Court having considered factual matrix of the said case acquitted the accused. In the case of State of Rajasthan V. Teja Ram and Ors(supra) relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Apex Court has held that the failure of the Serologist to detect the origin of the blood due to disintegration of the serum in the meanwhile does not mean that the blood stuck on the weapon would not have been of human blood at all. Sometimes it happens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to hematological changes and plasmatic coagulation that a Serologist might fail to detect the origin of the blood. The Apex Court further held that such a guess work that blood on the weapon would have been of animal blood is unrealistic and far fetched in the broad spectrum of the case. The effort of the Criminal Court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity no benefit can be claimed by the accused. 33. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the case of Teja Ram and Others. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity no benefit can be claimed by the accused. 33. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the case of Teja Ram and Others. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. The presence of blood on the jeans pant worn by the accused which was seized on the same night assumes importance as an incriminating factor in the absence of plausible explanation by the accused for the presence of the blood on the pant. In the present case except for bare denial of the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, the accused has not given any other explanation for the presence of blood on his jeans pant. In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to establish the circumstance that the accused was arrested on the night of 5/6/2006 and the blood was detected on his jeans pant. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish the sixth circumstance. 34. The seventh circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the death of the deceased was homicidal. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Dr. Silvano Dias Sapeco, PW.17, who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Gulzar Hussein. He further deposed that he had examined the dead body of Gulzar at the request of Panaji Police Station. The deceased was treated under MLC no.1576 at Goa Medical College hospital on 5/6/2006 at 2.15 with alleged history of assault at 1.30p.m on 5/6/2006. He had contused lacerated wound for left leg of 8 x 5 x1 cm over anterior aspect of left leg starting about 3 cm above ankle joint. He deposed that the following injuries on the dead body were fresh and ante mortem caused by blunt force impact of object. (i) Transverse contused lacerated wound of 6 x 1 x 1 cms x skull bone deep was seen along left whole of eyebrow with features of left black eye. (ii) Haematoma of 8 x 5 cms (on section it was 2 cms deep and had fractures for the left temporal bone) (iii) Oval red bruise 8 x 5 cms (on section it was 3 cms deep). It was on right mid inner aspect of lower leg along calf region. (ii) Haematoma of 8 x 5 cms (on section it was 2 cms deep and had fractures for the left temporal bone) (iii) Oval red bruise 8 x 5 cms (on section it was 3 cms deep). It was on right mid inner aspect of lower leg along calf region. (iv) Oval red bruise of 8 x 5 cms (on section it was 3 cms deep). It was along back of right knee joint region. (v) Vertical contuse lacerated wound of 17 x 6 x 5 cms x communited fractures for tibia and fibula bones, was seen along left mid shin front aspect of left lower leg. (vi) Contused lacerated wound of perimetric length of 8 x 1 x 1 cm x metatarsal bone deep was along outer aspect of right big toe. He further deposed that there were depressed communited fractures for frontal both temporal and left parietal bones, corresponding to the external injuries no.1 and 2. There were communited fractures for left tibia and fibula bones corresponding to the external injury no.5 and communited fracture for right big toe's metatasal bone corresponding to the external injury no.6. He deposed that the approximate time of death was at about 3.35p.m on 5/6/2006. He further deposed that the death was due to damage to the head and brain vide injuries 1 and 2 associated with injuries for both lower limbs vide injuries nos.3 to 6 as a result of blunt force impact by object, which were fatal in ordinary course of nature and were ante mortem and fresh at the time of death. He produced memorandum of autopsy and identified his hand writing. The same was taken on record and marked as Exhibit 46. Upon he being shown the base ball bat, (M.O 10) he determined its length as 33” and the circumference as 5” (12 1/2 inches). He further deposed that just below the top of the base ball bat, some stains were visible along with hair. He further deposed that this type of weapon would cause injuries nos. 1 to 6 that were found on the dead body. In cross-examination he confirmed that injury nos 1 to.6 could have resulted from accidental fall by his left leg getting trapped in a crevice, but in the present case considering the collective effect of the injuries, he disagreed that the injuries would have been caused by a fall. 35. 1 to 6 that were found on the dead body. In cross-examination he confirmed that injury nos 1 to.6 could have resulted from accidental fall by his left leg getting trapped in a crevice, but in the present case considering the collective effect of the injuries, he disagreed that the injuries would have been caused by a fall. 35. Thus, upon a close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witness and considering the injuries on the body of the deceased, we have no hesitation to hold that death of Gulzar was homicidal and not accidental. No doubt, the weapon (M.O 10) was shown to him for the first time in cross-examination, but this fact by itself would not be sufficient to discard the testimony of this witness which proves that the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that such injuries would have been caused by a base ball bat (M.O. 10). No doubt, the Investigating Officer was expected to get the opinion from the doctor in the course of investigation prior to the trial, but this lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer would not discredit the version of the doctor that the injuries noticed by him on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove the seventh circumstance. 36. The eighth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that a false plea was taken by the accused that he was not present at Panaji in the morning of 5/6/2006. In answer to question no.225, as to what else the accused had to state in the case, he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, on 5/6/2006 at 8.00 a.m. he left Panjim and went to Aroba, Pernem. To prove this fact he examined Nikil Naik as defence witness who claimed that the accused had come to his house at Aroba, Dhargal in the morning on 5/6/2006 on his motorcycle and the witness had accompanied the accused to I.T.I Panjim to purchase prospectus and thereafter they both proceeded at Aroba Pernem at 11 a.m. and after having lunch he left the place at about 4.00p.m. in the evening. We are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of Nikil Naik in support of the plea taken by the accused in view of the cogent evidence led by the prosecution through PW10, PW.11, PW.21, and PW.28 to which reference has been made herein above which clearly proves that the accused was very much present at Boca-de-Vaca around 1.30 p.m. on 5/6/2006. It is well settled that when the accused takes a plea of alibi, the burden is on the accused to prove the same with certainty. Moreover, the plea taken by the accused is falsified by the evidence of Anant Dargalkar, PW.20 who was a pancha for the arrest of the accused and attachment of clothes of the accused pursuant to the arrest and attachment panchanama (Exhibit 53). His version that the accused was arrested at Aroba, Pernem on 9.45 p.m. on 5/6/2006 not only stands corroborated by the panchanama Exhibit 53 but also by the evidence of I.O. M. Gaonkar, PW.32. It is pertinent to note that in his statement u/s 313, Cr.PC he denied that he was arrested at Aroba, Pernem, but absolutely nothing is brought on record by the accused as to where and when he was arrested by the I.O in the present case. Therefore, in our considered view the prosecution has been able to establish that a false plea has been taken by the accused that he was not present at Panaji at the time of commission of the crime. It is also well settled by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court that although no conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of a false plea taken by the accused, it provides additional link in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the eighth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. 37. The spot panchanama (Exhibit 169) also establishes that Gulzar was found on the spot with several bleeding injuries. The Inquest panchanama (Exhibit 9) also corroborates the post mortem report and establishes that the deceased was having several injuries on his person. 37. The spot panchanama (Exhibit 169) also establishes that Gulzar was found on the spot with several bleeding injuries. The Inquest panchanama (Exhibit 9) also corroborates the post mortem report and establishes that the deceased was having several injuries on his person. The evidence of Anant Dhargalkar, PW.20 coupled with the panchanama (Exhibit 53) proves that the accused was arrested on the night of 5th June 2006 at Aroba Pernem and the report (Exhibit 104) proves the presence of blood on jeans pant worn by the accused. 38. In so far as circumstance no. iv is concerned, we have already held that the prosecution has not been able to discover the weapon at the instance of the accused. However, in our opinion, the prosecution clearly establishes that the weapon was seized upon been pointed out by the accused which is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 39. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in order to convict an accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the following tests have to be satisfied: i) “The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii) The circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards 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 probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 40. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove circumstances nos. i, ii, iii, v, vi, vii, viii and ix. In so far as the circumstance no. iv is concerned, although the prosecution has not been able to prove the same, the prosecution has been able to prove that the weapon was seized at the instance of the accused. 41. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove circumstances nos. i, ii, iii, v, vi, vii, viii and ix. In so far as the circumstance no. iv is concerned, although the prosecution has not been able to prove the same, the prosecution has been able to prove that the weapon was seized at the instance of the accused. 41. In our considered opinion, the circumstances which have been proved by the prosecution clearly satisfy the tests laid down by the Apex Court and in our view, the circumstantial evidence clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused and the accused only who had committed the murder of Gulzar. Therefore, in our considered view no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 42. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution and the accused, we do not find any ground to interfere with impugned judgment and order. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.