JUDGMENT V.S. APPA RAO, J.—This appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3), Cr.P.C. by the State of Karnataka represented by Basavanahalli Police, against the judgment dated 14-3-2005 in S.C. No. 6/1997 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, whereby the sole accused charged for the offence under Section 302, IPC was acquitted under Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. 2. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows: (i) Deceased Nagarathna was the daughter of P.W. 2 K.C. Basavaraju and P.W. 3 Smt. Siddagangamma who hails from Kanikenahalli in Belur Taluk of Hassan District. The respondent-accused hails from Shivanahalli. One Marigowda is the grand father of accused who also hails from Kanikenahalli, the village in which the parents of deceased are residing. The accused was in the habit of visiting the house of grand father of deceased. At that time he was also visiting the house of parents of the deceased and became very close to the family members of deceased, including the deceased who had attained puberty. (ii) Some time prior to Gowri festival in the year 1996, deceased Nagarathna left the house with her personal belongings stating that she would go to her aunty Smt. Rajamma’s house situated at Sevanthanahalli. Since she did not return to her parents house even after 4-5 days, her mother P.W. 3 sent her husband P.W. 2 to Savanihanahalli. P.W. 2 went there and found that deceased had not gone there. He returned back to village and went in search of his daughter at Bangalore as she was visiting Bangalaore along with some girls who gone there to learn tailoring. There also he could not trace his daughter. Thereafter. P.W. 2 reported missing of his daughter to P.W. 4 Ramegowda. Both of them left to Bangalore in search of deceased but could not trace her. However, P.W. 4 came to know from some known persons about a news item appeared in papers about the death of a lady in a lodgeat Chikmagalur. P.W. 4 sent word to P.W. 2, who met P.W. 4 at Javagal. (iii) It is also the case of the prosecution that on 15-8-1996 P.W. 9 ML. Harish, Manager of Padmashree Lodge at Chickmagalur noticed foul smell emanating from Room No. 102 of the lodge. P.W. 4 sent word to P.W. 2, who met P.W. 4 at Javagal. (iii) It is also the case of the prosecution that on 15-8-1996 P.W. 9 ML. Harish, Manager of Padmashree Lodge at Chickmagalur noticed foul smell emanating from Room No. 102 of the lodge. It was revealed to him that the occupants of the said room, which was taken on 12-8-1996, had not reported at the reception about the vacancy. P.W. 9 informed P.W. 1 K.J. Venkatesh owner of the lodge about the foul smell emanating from the locked room. In turn, P.W. 1 informed Basavanahalli Police. P.W. 19 Devendrappa, the Sub-Inspector of Police, visited the lodge and secured panchas P.Ws. 10 and 17 and two others, went near the room along with P.Ws. 1 and 7 to 9 and found foul smell emanating from the room. P.W. 19 got broke open the lock of the room and found dead body of a lady on the cot. He obtained a complaint Ex. P2 from P.W. 1, drawn a Panchanama as per Ex. P1, registered a case in Crime No. 151/96 for the offence under Section 302, IPC against one Naveen in whose name the room was taken and tiled FIR as per Ex. P13. Thereafter, he returned to the lodge with staff and noticed MOs 1 to 13 in the room and a carry bag MO 27. He seized the articles under a panchanama Ex. P3 and handed over the investigation to P.W. 23 C.K. Shashidhar, the CPI who came to the spot. P.W. 23 took-up investigation, held inquest over the dead body under a panchanama Ex. P9 and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 7, 8, 9 and the Manager and room boy of the lodge. Thereafter, he handed-over the dead body to P.W. 14 Police Constable for post-mortem. The photographs (collectively marked as M.O. 14) of dead body were taken by P.W. 17-K.R. Raju. P.W. 20 Medical Officer conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Since there was nobody to claim the dead body, it was burried. P.W. 14 produced MOs 16 to 20 and 24 to 26 which were found on the body of the deceased before P.W. 23. On 6-8-1996 P.W. 23 seized Ex. P7 the Ledger Register of the lodge. Thereafter he received the post-mortem report Ex. P19. He forwarded MOs 24 to 26 the viscera to FSL for examination. P.W. 14 produced MOs 16 to 20 and 24 to 26 which were found on the body of the deceased before P.W. 23. On 6-8-1996 P.W. 23 seized Ex. P7 the Ledger Register of the lodge. Thereafter he received the post-mortem report Ex. P19. He forwarded MOs 24 to 26 the viscera to FSL for examination. (iv) On 3-9-1996 P.Ws. 2 and 4 met P.W. 23, who showed MOs 1 to 20 and 20 to 24 to them. P.Ws. 2 and 4 identified them as belong to the deceased and their statements were recorded. P.W. 4 had also identified the deceased by seeing the photographs (M.O.14). On 1-10-1996 P.W. 23 arrested the accused from his house at Shivanahalli, recorded the voluntary statement as per Ex. P26 and recovered MO 23 the key bunch of the room in the presence of panchas under a panchanama Ex. P12. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and CW6 and further statements of P.Ws. 8 and 9. On 3-10-1996 he seized MO21 a long note book containing the admitted writings of the deceased under a panchanama Ex. P4 and handed-over further investigation to P.W. 19. (v) On the instructions of CPI, P.W. 19 took the sample hand writing of the accused as per Exs. P15, 16 and 17 and seized them under a panchanama Ex. P18 and thereafter handed-over the investigation to P.W. 23. On 11-10-1996 P.W. 23 forwarded the admitted and disputed writings of accused to P.W. 7 I.M. Venu, the Handwriting and document Examiner to furnish his report. On 18-10-1996 he received the sketch Ex. P11 from the Junior Engineer and also Ex. P27 the Chemical Examination report and Ex. P28 the sample seal from FSL. On 16-12-1996 he received Exs. P20 and 21. the opinion of handwriting expert. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. (vi) After hearing the counsel for the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, framed charge under Section 302, IPC. The plea of the accused was total denial. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 23 and got marked Exs. P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 23. During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witness, the defence got marked Exs. D1 to D7. The plea of the accused was total denial. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 23 and got marked Exs. P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 23. During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witness, the defence got marked Exs. D1 to D7. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and accordingly acquitted him under Section 325(1), Cr.P.C. 3. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge, the State has filed this appeal on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 who have clearly identified the accused who had taken the lodge room in the name of one Naveen. It is submitted that the disputed signature and admitted signatures are tallied as per the report of handwriting expert. The learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that the prosecution has established the case under Section 302, IPC and, therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that no test identification parade was conducted by the police to identify the accused by P.Ws. 7 and 8 who were working as Manager and Room Boy of the lodge respectively. Therefore, the evidence of identification of accused by P.Ws. 7 and 8 cannot be believed. 5. There is no conclusive proof of the circumstance of deceased being last seen alive with the accused. The accused is not liable for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the accused placed reliance in the case of Venkatesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3913. In that case, the deceased alleged to have gone with the accused to other village and did not return. His body was found in a field two days later. Witnesses who have seen them last, have not stated the specific date, they neither knowing names of accused nor giving any identification mark or explaining how they could be identified. In that case, the deceased alleged to have gone with the accused to other village and did not return. His body was found in a field two days later. Witnesses who have seen them last, have not stated the specific date, they neither knowing names of accused nor giving any identification mark or explaining how they could be identified. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that conviction could not be based on their evidence. 6. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the articles seized were kept in a sealed cover or bag and they were got opened. The identification of the articles by the parents of the deceased cannot be believed as the articles must have been planted by the police and conviction cannot be based on discovery of articles. In support of this contention, the counsel placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 576. In that case, all the discovered articles were lying open barely 300 feel away from the dead body. The said articles were discovered after 10 days of the incident. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove the discovered clothes belonged to the accused. Evidence of prosecution witness who found the corpse at night did not report it till 10 a.m. next day. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that it was a clear case for benefit of doubt. It was observed that it was a weak kind of evidence and conviction in serious matter cannot be based on discovery of articles about 300 feet away from the dead body after more than 10 days of incident. 7. In the case of Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1136 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the “last seen together” theory has observed that the evidence of witness is full of contradictions and not worthy of acceptance. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision in the case of State of Haryana vs. Shibu @ Shiv Narain, reported in 2008 (2) Acquittal 140 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has observed that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision in the case of State of Haryana vs. Shibu @ Shiv Narain, reported in 2008 (2) Acquittal 140 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has observed that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. The High Court, as Court of first appeal, is obligated to go into greater detail of evidence to see whether any miscarriage has resulted from the order of acquittal, though it has to act with great circumspection and utmost care before ordering reversal of acquittal. 9. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to prove the case against the accused: (i) Motive.—The accused had developed illicit intimacy with deceased and had caused her pregnancy and wanted to get rid of her. (ii) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. (iii) On 12.8.1996 at 8.30 p.m or 9.00 p.m. the accused had taken deceased to room No. 102 of Padmashree lodge at Chickmagalur and occupied room No. 102 by falsely representing himself as Naveen of Arasikere. (iv) After commission of offence, accused disappeared from the lodge after locking room No. 102 without reporting at the reception counter. (v) Recovery of key of room No. 102 pursuant to voluntary statement made by accused. (vi) The signature found in the lodge register and standard signatures were identical. (vii) Conduct of the accused. (a) Accused had developed intimacy with deceased Nagarathna by frequently visiting her house in the absence of her parents. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.W. 2 K.C. Basavaraju is the father of the deceased. He has stated that the accused used to visit their house now and then; that he is distantly related to him; one Mari Gowda is the grandfather of the accused who hails from his place and accused used to go to his village to see him; that the accused used to go to his house in their absence whenever they used to go for coolie work. P.W. 3 Siddagangamma, the mother of the deceased also slated that the accused is a distantly related to them and used to visit their house every now and then. P.W. 4 Ramegowda who is related to P.Ws. P.W. 3 Siddagangamma, the mother of the deceased also slated that the accused is a distantly related to them and used to visit their house every now and then. P.W. 4 Ramegowda who is related to P.Ws. 2 and 3 has stated that he knows the accused since child-hood who used to visit his grand-mother’s house in his village. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 clearly shows that accused was in the habit of visiting his grand-father’s house and also used to visit the house of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and meet the deceased in their absence. On careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4, we find they had no motives to falsely implicate the accused. Even after the deceased was missing from their house they did not suspect the accused. P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 were not aware that it is at the instance of the accused the deceased had left her house. (b) The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her death. The post-mortem examination report Ex. P19 and the evidence of P.W. 20 Dr. S.K. Ramachandra who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 15-8-1996 shows that deceased was pregnant, therefore, the process of decomposition set-in early. His evidence further shows that protruding of the tongue and it being caught in between the teeth may indicate that it may be on account of pressure on the neck or due to smothering. It is, therefore, clear from his evidence that the death of the deceased was homicidal and deceased was carrying pregnancy at the time of her death. (c) The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the deceased while leaving her house had stated that she would go to her aunt’s house. Both P.Ws. 2 and 3 (parents) have stated in their evidence about the deceased leaving the house saying that she would to go her aunt’s house at Sevanthanahalli. One week thereafter P.W. 2 went to there to see his daughter but he was told that deceased has not visited the house of his sister-in-law. Thereafter, P.W. 2 went to Bangalore in search of his daughter thinking that she might have gone for learning tailoring work. P.W. 3 also stated that after Gowri festival her daughter left the house to Sevanthanahalli. Thereafter, P.W. 2 went to Bangalore in search of his daughter thinking that she might have gone for learning tailoring work. P.W. 3 also stated that after Gowri festival her daughter left the house to Sevanthanahalli. At that time she carried a vanity bag, purse, bangles, tooth brush, a pair of clothes and she was wearing an anklet chain, a silver ear-stud and a gold nose-stud. P.W. 3 prepared rava laddus and gave to her daughter. As she did not return for about one week, she sent her husband P.W. 2 to bring the daughter. Her husband went and returned back stating that daughter did not go to his sister’s house. Thereafter her husband went to Bangalore in search of daughter. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4, it is clear they had no motives to falsely implicate the accused. (d) The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the dead body of the deceased was found in Room No. 102 of Padmashree Lodge situated at Narasingharao Road, Basavanahalli, Chikmagalur. According to the case of prosecution, on 15-8-1996 P.W. 7 Venu, Manager of the lodge, informed the owner P.W. 1 K.J. Venkatesh that foul smell is emanating from Room No. 102 occupied by one Naveen on 12-8-1996 and there are two occupants in the said room. Thereafter, P.W. 1 proceeded to police station and informed about what had been told to him by the Manager. His evidence further shows that police visited the lodge, secured four persons and in their presence the lock of Room No. 102 was broke open under the panchanama Ex. P1 and they found dead body of a lady lying on a cot. Thereafter he lodged the complaint Ex. P2. P.W. 7 Venu, the Manager of Padmashree Lodge has stated that one of the room boy working in the lodge came and informed about the foul smell from Room 102 and he informed the same to P.W. 1 who, in turn, informed the police. The police came to the lodge along with P.W. 1, they broke open the lock of room No. 102 and found the dead body of a lady lying on the cot covered with a bed-sheet. The police came to the lodge along with P.W. 1, they broke open the lock of room No. 102 and found the dead body of a lady lying on the cot covered with a bed-sheet. P.W. 8 Jagadeesh, working as a room boy in the lodge, also stated in his evidence that three days after the occupation of Room No. 102 by a male and female, they noticed foul smell and on opening the room in the presence of the police, they found a dead body of a lady. By the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 7 and 8, the prosecution proved that dead body of a lady was found in Room No. 102. The evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 regarding identification of photographs of deceased and articles of deceased does not suffer from any discrepancy and their evidence has not been controverted. (e) (i) The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused had taken the deceased to Padmashree lodge at 8.30 p.m. or 9.00 p.m. on 12.8.1996. The accused took room No. 102 of the lodge in the name of one Naveen hailing from Ararikere on 12-8-1996. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 7 and 8-the Manager and room boy of the lodge. In the evidence, P.W. 7 has stated that room No. 102 was allotted to one Naveen from Arasikere on 12-8-1996 wherein two occupants were staying in the room. After making entries in the register, he handed-over the keys of the room to the room boy with a direction to take the customers to the room. The occupants did not turn-up to intimate the vacancy. On 15-8-1996 the room boy of the lodge informed him about the foul smell emanating from room No. 102 and he informed the same to P.W. 1, who in turn informed the police. The police came, broke opened the door of the room and dead body of a lady was found. He further stated in his evidence that about one or one-and half months later, the police brought the accused to the lodge. He identified him as the person to whom room No. 102 was allotted on 12-8-1996. On that day he came to know that the name of the accused as Prasanna. He further stated in his evidence that about one or one-and half months later, the police brought the accused to the lodge. He identified him as the person to whom room No. 102 was allotted on 12-8-1996. On that day he came to know that the name of the accused as Prasanna. From the evidence of P.W. 7, we find that on 12.8.1996 accused had occupied room No. 102 in the name of Naveen. The accused had affixed his signature as Naveen in the lodge register. P.W. 7 has deposed that he can identify the persons who had taken rooms if there is a specific person behind the same. (ii) P.W. 8 Jagadish who was working as a room boy of Padmashree lodge has deposed that as per the instructions of P.W. 7 he had taken the customers to room No. 102 of Padmashree lodge. The occupants of the room were a boy and a girl. They came to Padmashree lodge at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. P.W. 7 asked him to take them to room No. 102. Accordingly, the said persons were taken to the room along with key. P.W. 7 opened the door and left them in the room. P.W. 7 had kept the lock inside the room, gave the key to the occupants and came out of the room. P.W. 7 has deposed that three days later police came to Padmashree lodge and opened the room. There was a dead body of a lady in that room. It was emanating foul smell and the dead body was that of a lady. P.W. 7 has deposed that the accused is the person whom he had taken to room No. 102 along with a girl and left them in the room. During cross-examination, P.W. 7 has deposed that the age of the boy who had come to the lodge with a girl was 28 to 30 years. P.W. 8 has deposed that after two months, he had been summoned to Basavanahalli Police Station where he identified the person whom he had taken to room No. 102 along with a girl. During cross-examination, P.W. 8 has deposed that he had not seen the accused prior to seeing the accused in Basavanahalli Police Station. P.W. 8 has deposed that after two months, he had been summoned to Basavanahalli Police Station where he identified the person whom he had taken to room No. 102 along with a girl. During cross-examination, P.W. 8 has deposed that he had not seen the accused prior to seeing the accused in Basavanahalli Police Station. The learned counsel for accused referring to this part of evidence of P.W. 8 would submit that P.W. 8 had not seen the accused before the accused was shown to P.W. 8 in Basavanahalli Police Station. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 8 regarding identification of accused before Court is false. We are not persuaded to accept this submission. The evidence of P.W. 8 has to be appreciated by reading his entire evidence. The question put to P.W. 8 to elicit the answer is vague. Above all, evidence of identification before the Court is the substantive evidence. (iii) P.W. 19 Devendrappa, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Basavanahalli Police Station has deposed that on 15-8-1996 P.W. 1 visited the police station and informed him about the foul smell emanating from room No. 102 of Padmashree lodge belonging to him. He, therefore, visited Padmashree lodge, secured the presence of panch witnesses and noticed foul smell emanating from room No. 102. He broke open the lock of room No. 102 in the presence of the panchas and found dead body of a lady on the cot. He prepared a panchanama. P.W. 19 obtained a complaint from P.W. 1, returned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No. 151/96 against one Naveen, as the room was taken in his name. P.W. 19 has deposed that he seized the articles found in room No. 102 in the presence of panch witnesses under the panchanama marked as Ex. P3 and handed over investigation to police inspector namely P.W. 23-C.K. Shashidhar. P.W. 19 assisted P.W. 23 in further investigation. As instructed by P.W. 24, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. After the postmortem examination, the dead body was burned in the burial ground at Chikmagalur since there were no claimants for the same. P.W. 19 has deposed that on 4-10-1996 as per the instruction of his superiors he had taken the sample hand-writings Exs. P15 and P16 of the accused in the police station. After the postmortem examination, the dead body was burned in the burial ground at Chikmagalur since there were no claimants for the same. P.W. 19 has deposed that on 4-10-1996 as per the instruction of his superiors he had taken the sample hand-writings Exs. P15 and P16 of the accused in the police station. Apart from that, he has taken another sample hand writing of accused on six sheets as per Ex. P17. Exs. P15 to 17 were taken under panchanama Ex. P18. (iv) P.W. 23 C.K. Shashidhar, Circle Inspector of Police, Chikmagalur has deposed that on 15-8-1996 at about 12.15 p.m. he received information from P.W. 19 about a dead body found in the lodge. He took-up investigation, recorded the statements of P.Ws. 7 and 8 and seized the register Ex. P7 from Padmashree lodge from the possession of P.W. 7. On 3-9-1996 P.W. 2 the father of deceased and P.W. 4 met him in his office. He showed them MOs 1 to 20 and 24 to 26. On seeing them, they identified the same as belonging to the deceased. On 30-9-1996 he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 4. On 1-10-1996 he arrested the accused from his house and on interrogation the accused gave voluntary statement Ex. P26. In that statement the accused has stated that he would produce the keys of room No. 102 of the lodge which were thrown by the side of Basavanahalli tank hand. He seized the keys MO-23 in the presence of panch witnesses under mahazar Ex. P24. He has also stated that on 11-10-1996 he forwarded the disputed and admitted handwritings of the accused to the Hand Writing and Document Examiner for comparison. On 18-10-1996 he received the Chemical Examination reports Exs. P27 and P28 from FSL, Chikmagalur and on 16-12-1996 he received the opinion from handwriting expert as per Exs. P20 and P21. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. The learned counsel for accused referring to evidence of P.W. 23 has submitted that recovery of key (M.O.23) pursuant, to voluntary statement by the accused cannot be accepted. P.W. 18-Rehamathulla, independent witness for recovery of key has not supported the case of prosecution. There was a duplicate key with P.W. 1 as admitted by P.W. 7. It is true P.W. 18 has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 18-Rehamathulla, independent witness for recovery of key has not supported the case of prosecution. There was a duplicate key with P.W. 1 as admitted by P.W. 7. It is true P.W. 18 has not supported the case of prosecution. However, that cannot be a ground to discard evidence of P.W. 23, which has stood the test of scrutiny. It is true P.W. 7 has admitted duplicate key was available with P.W. 1. P.W. 7 has not deposed that key (M.O.23) shown to him and identified by him before Court was the duplicate key. P.W. 7 has identified key (M.O.23) before Court. P.W. 7 has deposed M.O.23 is the key of the lock put to room No. 102. P.W. 7 has also identified the nameplate found with the key. (v) P.W. 22 Syed Asgar Imam is the Handwriting and Document Expert at FSL, Bangalore. He has compared the admitted and disputed handwritings and signatures of the accused. He has stated that on 14-10-1996 he received the said documents for examination from the Dy. S.P. Chikmagalur, pertaining to Crime No. 151/96. He has further stated that after examining the said documents, he wasof the opinion that the standard writings marked as R-1 to 18 and S-2 to 12 are written by the same person. His opinion is Ex. P20 and the reasons therefor is Ex. P21. He has also deposed that Exs. P15, 16 and 17 are the standard writings sent for his examination. In the note book MO 21, he has marked the admitted signatures of accused as S-2 to S-12 (MOs21(i)to(xi)). 10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is an illiterate. The standard handwritings said to have been taken are not his standard writings and, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 22 and the reasons assigned by him in Ex. P21 in support of Ex. P20 opinion cannot be believed. (i) P.Ws. 7 and 8-the Manager and room boy of Padmashree Lodge have clearly stated in their evidence that at the time of taking the room, the accused put his signature as Naveen. Both of them have identified the accused after he was arrested by P.W. 23. Ex. P7(b) is the signature of the accused, which clearly establish the fact that accused signed his name as Naveen. Both of them have identified the accused after he was arrested by P.W. 23. Ex. P7(b) is the signature of the accused, which clearly establish the fact that accused signed his name as Naveen. (ii) At the time of framing charge, when charge was read over to accused, he pleaded not guilty and put his signature as Prasanna S.P. (Prasanna in Kannada and the initials S.P. in English). But, when his statement was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on 22-1-2005, he has affixed his thumb impression on all the pages and did not put his signature purposely. (iii) On the Vakalath filed in this case, he has put his signature as Prasanna S.P., the name in Kannada and the initials in English. We find from the conduct of accused that he affixed his signatures to the plea record to the charges framed has affixed his thumb impression to the statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused had deliberately made an attempt to prove that he is an illiterate person and he is not capable of affixing his signature in the lodge register and the standard signatures obtained by the Investigating Officer are false. This conduct of accused tells upon the guilt of accused. P.W. 22 compared the standard signature at Ex. P7(b) in the register maintained in the lodge with the writings at MOs 21(i) to (xi) and has deposed that they are of the one and the same person. P.W. 22 has given reasons for arriving at conclusion that request writings marked as Ex. P22 and the signatures found in lodge register of Padmashree Lodge are of one and the same person. P.W. 22 has deposed that signature marked in the lodge register tallies with the standard signatures marked as Ex. P16 and Ex. P17 as it relates to signatures marked in Ex. P21 (i) to 21(xi). During cross-examination of P.W. 22 his comparison opinion was sought to be discredited on the ground that stroke found after “N” in lodge register, dot found in Ex. P7(b) and signature in the lodge register are not found in exemplar signatures marked as Ex. P15 to Ex. P17. P.W. 22 has deposed that dot found after the handwriting would not be taken for examination for studying writing habits. 11. P7(b) and signature in the lodge register are not found in exemplar signatures marked as Ex. P15 to Ex. P17. P.W. 22 has deposed that dot found after the handwriting would not be taken for examination for studying writing habits. 11. In the discussion made supra, we have held that accused even during trial had deliberately made an attempt to establish that he was an illiterate person. Therefore, if the accused had omitted to put stroke after letter “N” in exemplar signature that cannot be a reason to discredit the evidence of P.W. 22. 12. In view of all these, the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the accused is illiterate and the standard writings obtained by the police do not belong to him, cannot be believed. 13. At all stages and even before the trial also the accused made several attempts to screen from punishment by changing his identity from time to time. The premeditated conduct of the accused proves his intention to commit murder of the deceased. Thus, on overall appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, we hold that prosecution has proved the following circumstances :— (I) The accused had illicit intimacy with the deceased, as a result the deceased had conceived and she had become pregnant. The accused had intention to get rid of the deceased by eliminating her. The deceased had left her house at the instance of accused. On 12.8.1996 at 8.30 p.m. or 9 p.m. accused had taken the deceased to Padmashree Lodge and took Room No. 102 by representing himself as Navin and also putting his signature as “Navin” in the lodge register. 14. The accused smothered the deceased to death and locked the room from outside and is appeared from that place. After the arrest of accused, key and name plate of Room No. 102 of Padmashri Lodge was recovered on the information volunteered by him. the accused during trial by putting his signature to the plea and affixing his LTM to the statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. had made unsuccessful attempts to conceal his guilt. 15. When the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to find out whether the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole inference that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. 15. When the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to find out whether the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole inference that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. In the instant case, the circumstances from which the guilt to be drawn have been fully established beyond shadow of doubt. All the link in the chain are completed pointing the guilt of the accused. No gap is left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. The accused it, therefore, liable for punishment for the offence under Section 302, IPC causing the death of Nagarathna. 16. The learned trial Judge has not appreciated evidence in proper perspective. The learned trial Judge was not justified in suspecting the evidence of identification of accused even by P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. The learned trial Judge was not justified in suspecting motive put forth by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge had not reasons to disbelieve the evidence relating to recovery of key and name plate of Room No. 102 on the information volunteered by accused. The learned trial Judge has assigned untenable reasons to disagree with the opinion furnished by the handwriting expert. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice the conduct of accused during trial. The accused having affixed his signature to the vakalath and plea recorded after the charge has deliberately affixed LTM to the statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., to make it appear that he is an illiterate person. Therefore, circumstances proved by the prosecution are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 17. In view of the above discussion, we hold that accused is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC for causing death of the deceased. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal of the trial Court is set aside. Under Section 235(2), Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for three months. The accused is entitled for set off under Section 428, Cr.P.C.