JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. 1. THE prosecution story as we find from the record would relate back to 3anuary 18, 2005, few days after the Tsunami disaster. Narayan Singh, the victim was residing along with his family members at his house. Ritta Munda, the appellant was also staying with him. Narayan engaged him as a daily labourer in his field. On the fateful day, Narayan's family was away from the house. He was alone in the house in the company of Ritta. They were seen together in the said house in the evening on that day. The witnesses saw Narayan inside the house, where as Ritta was cutting firewood outside. At 8 p.m P.W. 15 (Prema Kumari) served food to (Narayan and left the house, when she saw Ritta was entering into the house. Next day morning, Narayan was found dead. Ritta was nowhere to be seen. After a chase he was arrested from the jungle after seven days. At least four witnesses said that he left the village late at night along with a suitcase and a Ballam (sphere). While confronted he told "I am going away. I may not live with Narayan who used to quarrel with roe frequency. I have killed him with Kulhadi(axe)". 2. THE prosecution examined 31 witnesses whereas Ritta and his co-accused Bishram were examined by the court under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence came to the following conclusion:- "So, the following circumstances are firmly established in the case. Firstly, that the accused Ritta lived in the house of the deceased and worked in the agricultural lands of the deceased for a long period and he was found in the house of the deceased in the evening of 18.1.2005 also, but in the early hours of morning on 19.1.2005 when the dead body with marks of grievous injuries was found in the house of the deceased accused Ritta was found having disappeared from the house with all his personal belongings and the accused Ritta has given an explanation which is found to be false. Secondly, that in the very night of the murder the accused Ritta was found by three villagers leaving the village with a suitcase in hand and the accused Ritta confessed his guilt before those villagers. Secondly, that in the very night of the murder the accused Ritta was found by three villagers leaving the village with a suitcase in hand and the accused Ritta confessed his guilt before those villagers. Thirdly, that the accused Ritta was not found any where in the village after the murder and after about 7 days he was found having taken shelter in a hide out inside a jungle from where he had been arrested by the police with a suitcase containing his personal belongings and here also he had taken up a specific plea which he failed to prove also. So, there is no satisfactory explanation of the accused Ritta for such conduct after the murder, and fourthly, that the accused Ritta had a motive behind the murder. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances form a complete chain, which leads to the only conclusion that the accused Ritta is the murderer." The learned Judge held Ritta guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused Bishram was not found guilty and thus acquitted. Ritta was sentenced for life which he is suffering. He preferred the appeal from the jail. 3. INITIALLY Mr. Hemraj Bahadur, learned advocate, filed the appeal on behalf of Ritta. Mr. Bahadur is indisposed. Hence, we engaged Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned advocate, to appear an behalf of the appellant* Mrs. Nag took us to the evidence in detail to show the discrepancies that we would be discussing hereinafter. Citing those discrepancies Mrs. Nag contended that the accused should be given the' benefit of doubt. She also contended that the accused was not given adequate opportunity to explain his conduct as the learned Judge posed jumbled up questions and the appellant could not properly reply to the same. She prayed for setting aside of the conviction followed by an order of acquittal. 4. OPPOSING the appeal Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the discrepancies so highlighted by Mrs. Nag were minor in nature. The witnesses were rustic villagers. They deposed after about sixteen months of the incident. Hence, such discrepancies were usual. She prayed for setting aside of the conviction followed by an order of acquittal. 4. OPPOSING the appeal Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the discrepancies so highlighted by Mrs. Nag were minor in nature. The witnesses were rustic villagers. They deposed after about sixteen months of the incident. Hence, such discrepancies were usual. In any event, even if those discrepancies were given credence, the concrete evidence, so found by the learned trial judge, completing the chain of events would be so apparent that the order of conviction would be found to be just that did not deserve interference by the court of appeal. Mr. Mandal contended that the victim was found alive lastly in the company of the accused. The accused was duty bound to explain as to how the incident occurred. Soon after the incident the accused fled away from the scene until he was arrested after seven days, that too, after a long chase. Hence, his conduct was also abnormal raising a pointer to him that he could not and did not explain during his examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, Mr. Mandal relied on section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mr. Mandal prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Let us first examine the evidence. The learned trial judge examined each and every evidence in detail. We need not repeat the same. However, we intend to discuss the principal witnesses and the discrepancies highlighted by Mrs. Nag. P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 31 were principal witnesses. 5. HARBAJAN Singh, P.W.8 was the father of Narayan, the victim. He was his third son. HARBAJAN was a cultivator, so was Narayan. HARBAJAN had seven sons and two daughters. Narayan was living separately. 6. ACCORDING to Harbajan, sometimes Narayan and Ritta used to quarrel in "drunken condition". Ritta murdered Narayan. On the fateful day Narayan's family was away from the house. Narayan went to take her. She did not come. Narayan returned at 3 p.m. and went to the field along with Ritta for cultivation. At 5 p.m. both of them returned home. Ritta then started cutting firewood with the help of the axe. On the next day Sunil Kumar saw the dead body when he went to collect milk from the house of Narayan. She did not come. Narayan returned at 3 p.m. and went to the field along with Ritta for cultivation. At 5 p.m. both of them returned home. Ritta then started cutting firewood with the help of the axe. On the next day Sunil Kumar saw the dead body when he went to collect milk from the house of Narayan. In cross- examination, Harbhajan said that he slept at about 7/8 p.m. Harbhajan's brother Bhagwan Singh P.W.2 also supported Harbhajan to such extent. According to Bhagwan, Ritta used to cultivate on Narayan's behalf. On the fateful day at about 2 p.m. Ritta told him that he cultivated the paddy and as such the paddy belonged to him and he would not give share to anyone. Bhagwan told the same to Chamal Singh, P.W.I, Harbajan's son and brother of Narayan at 4 p.m. In cross examination, Bhagwan deposed that he left the field after cultivation at 5 p.m. along with his two sons. 7. P.W.1, the brother of Narayan deposed that Bhagwan had toJd him about the statement of Ritta that he would not give share of paddy. At 6 p.m. Chamal saw Ritta cutting firewood with an axe. Narayan was in his house at that time. At 6/6.30 p.m. they had their meal and slept as that period was just after the impact of Tsunami and massive earthquake. In cross-examination, he denied to have stated to police that at 8 p.m. Ritta cut firewood with Kulhadi (axe) kept in the house and kept the same in Che room and cooked food for him and Ritta and then slept. He confirmed having met Bhawan at 4 p.m. He further added that he went to the uncle's house where he narrated the occurrence. At 5.30 p.m. he returned to his house. 8. P.W.5 Vinod Singh is the son of Bhagwan (P.W.2). At 11 p.m. on the fateful day they were winnowing paddy when they saw Ritta. Ritta told him "I will not live with Narayan Singh as he has been quarrelling with me. I have killed him with axe". They did not believe the statement and as such ignored the same. They left the field at 12/12.30 in the night. He had stated to the Investigating Officer that they thought, some altercation between Ritta and Narayan might have taken place. As a result, Ritta left the place. I have killed him with axe". They did not believe the statement and as such ignored the same. They left the field at 12/12.30 in the night. He had stated to the Investigating Officer that they thought, some altercation between Ritta and Narayan might have taken place. As a result, Ritta left the place. P.W. 6, Mahadev Sammadar was also cultivating paddy along with Bhagwan(P.W.5) and Hardeep (P.W.7). He corroborated Vinod on the issue of winnowing paddy and the statement made by Ritta before them. Hardeep Singh being P.W.7 also corroborated Vinod and Mahadev to the extent as above. Thus we are left with the couple Darsan Singh and Prema Kumari being P.W.9 and 15. Their house was damaged in Tsunami. They used to sleep in the house of Harbajan in the night. According to Darsan(P.W.9), Harbhajan's wife told Prema Kumari to go to the house of Narayan to enquire about his meal as his family was away. Accordingly, Prema Kumari went there and came back and reported that Narayan had taken his food. She also reported that after taking food Narayan was resting on his cot. Ritta returned from outside to the house of Narayan. She also confirmed that Ritta was apprehended along with a suitcase and a ballam after about seven days. 9. PREMA Kumari (P.W.15) however made a different statement on the issue of visit, as according to her, Darsan accompanied her to the house of Narayan. The other part remained corroborated. Narayan told her that he had already taken his meal. PREMA Kumari served him the dinner. When she was about to retu rn Ritta ca me to the room. 10. THIS was all about the villagers. The discrepancies so highlighted by Mrs. Nag are as follows :- (i) According to Darsan, Prema Kumari alone visited the place whereas, Prema Kumari. deposed that she was accompanied by herlyjsband. (ii) Chamal(P.W.1) in his examination- in-chief deposed that he had met Bhagwan in the field. At the same time he deposed that he had gone to the house of Bhagwan when Bhagwan had narrated the incident to him. (iii) P.W.8 (Harbajan Singh) deposed that at 5 p.m. Narayan and Ritta had come back home from the field. (ii) Chamal(P.W.1) in his examination- in-chief deposed that he had met Bhagwan in the field. At the same time he deposed that he had gone to the house of Bhagwan when Bhagwan had narrated the incident to him. (iii) P.W.8 (Harbajan Singh) deposed that at 5 p.m. Narayan and Ritta had come back home from the field. He returned from the field at 4 p.m. and slept at about 7/8 p.m. Bhagwan (P.W.2) however deposed that he had left the field after doing agriculture work at 5 p.m. alongwith his two sons namely Vinod and Hardeep. (iv) Vinod and Hardeep spoke about winnowing paddy at the night whereas neither Harbajan nor Bhagwan corroborated the same. (v.) P.W.9 stated that at the time of arrest his shirt had been blood stained whereas his lungi having blood stain was recovered from a hidden place. Question now remains as to whether the above anomalies and/or discrepancies would be vital for the prosecution. If we closely analyze the evidence of Darsan and Prema Kumari we would find that corroboration from each other was very much there on the issue. However, possibly she was under misconception that Darsan accompanied her, whereas according to Darshan, Prema Kumari went alone and came back and reported the incident. This minor discrepancy is not vital as the very fact that Narayan was resting on his cot after the meal and Ritta was entering the room, was consistent. On the winnowing of paddy, we find corroboration from Hardeep, Vinod and Mahadev. The afternoon incident and the quarrel between the two, were told by most of the witnesses! Hence, such discrepancy, in our view, should be ignored, rather should be weighed with the other evidence as apparent from the record, completing the chain, so found out by the learned trial judge. 11. THE following admitted facts are apparent :- (i) Rittta was working with Narayan. (ii) He was staying with Narayan. (iii) Narayan was alone in the house when Ritta was entering into the room. (iv) They were last seen together in the evening. (v) Earlier, incident of quarrel on sharing of paddy, also got corroboration. (vi) THE extra judicial confession got support from Vinod, Hardeep and Mahadev. (vii) He was hiding for last seven days in the jungle where from he was arrested with his suitcase and a sphere. 12. (iv) They were last seen together in the evening. (v) Earlier, incident of quarrel on sharing of paddy, also got corroboration. (vi) THE extra judicial confession got support from Vinod, Hardeep and Mahadev. (vii) He was hiding for last seven days in the jungle where from he was arrested with his suitcase and a sphere. 12. THE weapon (axe) that was being used by him, for cutting firewood, was proved to be the offending weapon having human blood stain was corroborated by the forensic expert. If we take the sum total and try to complete the chain we would find that there had been discord between them on the issue of sharing paddy that prompted Ritta to commit the crime. No one saw the incident. The circumstantial evidence would show both of them alive at the evening of the fateful day and the victim was found dead at 5 p.m. in the next morning. Accused was found missing for seven days. He did not make any attempt to remove the doubt as to his disappearance. He neither explained as to how the incident occurred nor gave any explanation, far to speak of plausible, why he had disappeared and hiding in the jungle until he had been arrested. His conduct was not above board. 13. MR. Mandal relied Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Section 8 would inter alia, provide, any relevant fact constituting a motive or preparation of any fact in issue or relevant fact would be vital and the conduct of any party in relation to such fact would obviously influence the decision. 14. IF we look to the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code we would find that the accused did not dispute his relationship with Narayan. He also did not dispute categorically the incident save and except making a bare denial. For example, in reply to question no.9 he was confronted with the evidence of P.W.1 that after seeing the dead body he was calling the accused by name and did, not get any reply and found that he had left along with all belongings. The answer was, "I was in 'KHETI' at some distance from my house intervened by a 'NALA'". It is thus proved that he did not dispute that he had left the house along with his belongings after the incident. The answer was, "I was in 'KHETI' at some distance from my house intervened by a 'NALA'". It is thus proved that he did not dispute that he had left the house along with his belongings after the incident. He was staying in the house for a long time doing work for him. No prudent man would leave the house without informing anyone, that top, after such gruesome murder. Hence, he owed an explanation as to how the incident had happened and why he had left. His silence would complete the chain. In question no. 21 he was confronted with the evidence of P.W.8 that he was arrested by police after 3/4 days. He replied, he was ' innocent. He was arrested from a cultivable field. No one goes to the field for cultivation alone with his suitcase or sphere. 15. COMING back to the analysis of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge, we would find that the learned Judge found the chain complete in the following manner :- (i) Ritta left the house of the victim and worked in his field for a long period. He was found in the house in the evening on the fateful day and on the next day morning when the dead body was recovered he was found missing along with his personal belongings. (ii) In the very night of incident three villagers found him leaving the village with a suitcase when he had confessed his guilt before them. (iii) He was not found anywhere in the village after the incident and was arrested after seven days from a hidden place inside the jungle. No satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from him for his conduct. (iv) He had a motive in view of his past discord with regard to the sharing of paddy. In our view, the analysis of the learned Judge is apt. 16. THE learned counsel for the parties did not cite any authority before us. However, from the judgment of the Court below we find that the defence relied upon on the decision in the case of Sattatiya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 210. In the said decision the Apex Court considered the issue of circumstantial evidence. However, from the judgment of the Court below we find that the defence relied upon on the decision in the case of Sattatiya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 210. In the said decision the Apex Court considered the issue of circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court observed, where there is no direct evidence, Court can draw an inference of guilt when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused and the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be interfered from those circumstance the chain is complete. From the analysis as discussed above, the incriminating facts would lead to only one inference that it was the appellant and nobody else who committed the crime. The Apex Court gave acquittal considering the fact that the incriminating clothes were recovered from a room which was unlocked and those could be accessed by anyone. The prosecution could not explain as to how the room could be without any lock. The recovery of half blade from the roadside was also not convincing. The credibility of the evidence relating to recovery is substantially dented by the fact that even though as per the chemical examiner's report the blood stains found on the shirt, trousers and half blade were those of human blood, the same could not be linked with the blood of the deceased. In the case before us, the axe was found blood stained in the house. The incident occurred in the night when nobody did access the said house and early in the morning the dead body was found. Moreover, soon after the incident the accused himself appeared from the scene along with his belongings. Taking a sum total, we are unable to apply the ratio in the case of Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra(supra) to write a judgment of acquittal. In our view, the learned Judge was right in convicting the accused, appellant above named that does not deserve any interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 17. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Correctional Home where the appellant was suffering the sentence, for his information. In our view, the learned Judge was right in convicting the accused, appellant above named that does not deserve any interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 17. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Correctional Home where the appellant was suffering the sentence, for his information. Lower Court Records be sent down at once along with a copy of the judgment. 18. URGENT Xerox certified copy of the judgment and order be supplied to the parties after observing all required formalities.