JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.09.2006, passed, in Sessions Case No. 52 (CH) of 2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai, Sankardevnagar, convicting the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik, under Sections 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus : (i) Accused Biswajit Bhowmick and Sanjib Singh, both of whom were cable operators, had some business dealings. Sanjib Singh (since deceased) owed to the accused-appellant a small sum of Rs. 800/-, out of some transactions, which they had. On 28.02.2005, at about 8.00/8.30 p.m., a meeting for settlement of accounts between the two was held at the shop of the said deceased, Sanjib, wherein Sanjib admitted that he was required to pay to the accused-appellant a sum of Rs. 800/-. Sanjib, however, sought for some time to make payment; whereas, the accused demanded that the payment be made immediately. This resulted into an altercation between the two. Following the altercation, there was, in fact, a scuffle between the two. PW 7 intervened and separated the two. Thereafter, Sanjib and Biswajit left and PW 7, too, left the shop. This happened, at around 10:00 P.M., on 28.02.2005. (ii) On that very day, i.e., on 28.2.2005, at about 10.00/10.30 p.m., when PW 6 was passing through the market area, where the shop of the accused-appellant was located, he saw the accused-appellant and Sanjib having altercation. Though PW 6 wanted to know as to what the cause of their altercation was, he (PW 6) was brushed aside by both, Sanjib as well as the accused-appellant, by asking him to mind his own business. (iii) Sanjib, after the alternation, as indicated above, came home and, at about 10:30 P.M., left his home accompanied by accused-appellant, Biswajit, and Gopi (since acquitted). Before leaving his house, Sanjib told his wife (PW 10) that he would go to the house of a person to take money and would hand over the same to another person. (iii) Sanjib, after the alternation, as indicated above, came home and, at about 10:30 P.M., left his home accompanied by accused-appellant, Biswajit, and Gopi (since acquitted). Before leaving his house, Sanjib told his wife (PW 10) that he would go to the house of a person to take money and would hand over the same to another person. On seeing that her husband was tense and he was leaving the house with accused-appellant, Biswajit, and Gopi (since acquitted), PW 10 asked her husband (Sanjib) not to go with them, but accused-appellant, Biswajit, and Gopi told PW 10 that she need not worry and that they would send back her husband soon. (iv) At around midnight, when PW 9 was sleeping at his shop, one Monu @ Narayan Paul, whose shop was located opposite the shop of PW 9, came to him (PW 9) and told him that he had heard some sound near the shop of Swapan Dev, whereupon PW 9, accompanied by the said Monu, went to the spot from where the sound was reported by Monu to have come. On reaching the spot, they found a person lying injured with his face down. PW 9 and the said Monu could not recognize the person, who was lying there, because his face was not wholly visible. They, however, informed, over telephone, the police, at Lumding Police Station, that a person was lying in injured condition near Loknath Mandir. GD Entry, No. 800/29, dated 01.03.2005, was accordingly made at the said police station. (v) When the police visited the place of occurrence, they found a male body lying there. The dead body was recognized as the dead body of Sanjib. Inquest was held on the said dead body and the same was also subjected to post mortem examination. Three blood-stained stones were found near the said dead body and the said three stones were seized by the police. (vi) Notwithstanding the fact that investigation had so commenced, an information, in writing, was lodged by Ranjit Singh, brother of the said deceased, Sanjib Singh, with regard to the occurrence. Based on the said written information and treating the same as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Lumding Police Station Case No. 22/05, under Section 302/ 34, was registered against unknown persons. (vii) During the course of investigation, sniffer dog was put into service by police. Based on the said written information and treating the same as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Lumding Police Station Case No. 22/05, under Section 302/ 34, was registered against unknown persons. (vii) During the course of investigation, sniffer dog was put into service by police. The police, following the sniffer dog, which was put into service, went to the house of the accused-appellant and recovered, from under the bed of the accused, blood stained currency notes of the denominations of Rs. 5/- and Rs. 50/- and a pay slip, which, too, had blood stains. Police, then, seized the currency notes and the pay slip. The police also found a pair of jeans and shirt in the toilet, which had been recently washed. The shirt and the pair of jeans were also seized by the police. The said blood-stained stones, currency notes, pay-slip, the pair of jeans and shirt were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, for chemical examination. The report of the chemical examination revealed that the currency notes, the pay slip and the stones had the stains of human blood; but the blood group could not be determined. As far as the pair of jeans and shirt were concerned, the same were not found to have blood stains. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid, under Sections 302/ 34 IPC, against two accused persons, namely, the present appellant, Sanjib Bhowmik, and the said Gopi. 2. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 18 (eighteen) witnesses. The two accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their examinations aforementioned, both the accused denied that they had committed the offence, which they were alleged to have committed, the case of the defence being that of denial. The further case of the accused-appellant, Biswajit, was that his father had sustained injury on his head and that the blood stains, which had been found on the said currency notes and pay slip, were of his father. However, it is noteworthy that the facts, that the blood stained currency notes and pay-slip were recovered from under the bed of the accused-appellant and the same were seized by the police, remained unchallenged. However, it is noteworthy that the facts, that the blood stained currency notes and pay-slip were recovered from under the bed of the accused-appellant and the same were seized by the police, remained unchallenged. This apart, in support of his plea that his father had sustained injury on his head and/or that the blood stains, found on the said currency notes and the pay slip, were of his father, no evidence was adduced by the appellant Biswajit Bhowmik. 3. Having found that the incriminating materials were not sufficient to convict accused Gopi Dutta, the learned trial Court acquitted him accordingly; but, on having found the present accused-appellant guilty of the offence of murder, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. 4. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, accused, Biswajit Bhowmick, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. As against the acquittal of accused, Gopi Dutta, there is no appeal or revision. 5. We have heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel, for the appellant, and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that no witness has been examined by the prosecution, who claims to have witnessed the accused-appellant assaulting and/or killing Sanjib Singh. The case of the prosecution, therefore, rests on circumstantial evidence. 7. The principles, governing conviction of an accused in a case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, are fairly well settled, which we would advert to a little later. 8. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, we, now, come to the medical evidence on record, In this regard, it is noteworthy that the doctor (PW 2), who had, on 1.3.2005, admittedly, conducted post mortem examination, on the dead body of Sanjib Singh, found as follows : 1. Skull bone fractured over the parietal area with haematoma. 2. Injury over the upper left eye. There was clotted blood and the left ear was in bruised condition. No other injury was found. 9. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and hemorrhage, resulting from the head injury, which the said deceased had sustained. It is also the opinion of the doctor that the head injury could cause immediate death of the deceased. 10. No other injury was found. 9. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and hemorrhage, resulting from the head injury, which the said deceased had sustained. It is also the opinion of the doctor that the head injury could cause immediate death of the deceased. 10. Notwithstanding the opinion, so given by the doctor, that the head injury, found on the said dead body, could have caused immediate death, the doctor has also opined that if such a patient is treated at hospital, he may survive and that such type of injuries may be caused on being dashed against hard substance with sufficient force or fall from great height upside down. 11. So far as providing of medical treatment is concerned, one has to refer, in this regard, to Section 299 IPC. Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC, which defines culpable homicide, reads as under : Explanation 2. Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person, who causes such bodily injury, shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. (Emphasis is added) 12. From the above Explanation, it becomes clear that when a person sustains an injury, which, otherwise, amounts to culpable homicide, the act of the accused would remain as culpable homicide even if proper or skilful treatment might have prevented death of the injured. The opinion, therefore, given, in the present case, by the doctor (PW 7) that the said deceased could have survived, had proper treatment been provided to him, does not have any bearing in determining the question as to whether the acts of the accused-appellant did or did not amount to culpable homicide. 13. While considering the above aspect of the case, one must bear in mind that the opinion of an expert, such as, a medical practitioner, though admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is not binding on the Court inasmuch as the opinion of an expert is merely advisory in nature and may help the Court, in a given case, in arriving at a correct conclusion; but, at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the Court to determine, with the help of expert, if required, the cause of death. If the evidence on record discloses that the deceased had been beheaded, the conviction of the perpetrator of the crime would not require assistance from a medical practitioner if the Court is, otherwise, satisfied that the head of the deceased was severed from his neck by such a weapon as might have transpired from the evidence on record. 14. In the case at hand, too, the evidence, given by the doctor (PW 7) that the said deceased could have survived if treatment was provided to him, would not absolve the accused-appellant from the responsibility of having committed an act of culpable homicide if his act, otherwise, falls within the meaning of culpable homicide as defined by Section 299 IPC. 15. We may, at this stage, pause here to point out that Clause fourthly of Section 300, which defines murder, reads : Fourthly - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 16. If somebody hits a person on his dead by stone with such force that it causes fractures of the skull bone, it would be wholly reasonable to infer that the person, hitting the deceased, knew that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and if he commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid, then, he is said to have committed murder. 17. So far as PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 are concerned, apart from the fact that they have been declared hostile, there is really no other significance of their evidence inasmuch as their evidence neither advances the case of the prosecution nor defeats the prosecution's case. 18. 17. So far as PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 are concerned, apart from the fact that they have been declared hostile, there is really no other significance of their evidence inasmuch as their evidence neither advances the case of the prosecution nor defeats the prosecution's case. 18. Turning to the evidence of PW 7, it may be noticed that PW 7 has deposed that he knows accused Biswajit, accused Gopi (since acquitted) and late Sanjib and, on 28.02.2005, at about 6.00 or 6.30 pm, Sanjib called him up and told him that with regard to accounts of cable business, there was some dispute with Biswajit and he (PW 7) should come to his shop and by about 7.00 or 7.30 pm, PW 7 went to his shop, where, apart from Sanjib, accused Biswajit and some others were present. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that from his own shop, PW 7 went to Amu's shop, but Amu was not available at his shop. Thereafter, at about 8.00 or 8.30 pm, PW 7, accompanied by Sanjib, came to a pan shop near Sanjib's shop and when they were talking, accused Biswajit came there and Biswajit, again, talked about the accounts and this led to an altercation between Biswajit and Sanjib and they started scuffling, but PW 7 separated them and, after a little while, Sanjib left and, by that time, it was 10.00 or 10.05 pm and, then, Biswajit and he (PW 7), too, left and, on the following day, at about 7.30 or 8.00 a.m., he (PW 7) came to know that Sanjib had died. 19. It may be noted that it is in the evidence of PW 7 that Biswajit had told him (PW 7) that he was to receive from Sanjib Rs. 800/-. In his cross-examination, PW 7 has clarified that Biswajit asked for money and Sanjib asked for time to make payment and when Biswajit asked for time, the quarrel started. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that when he (PW 7) had settled the accounts, Sanjib had accepted and even the accused, Biswajit, had accepted the accounts, but accused Biswajit wanted the money and Sanjib was asking for time and, at first, they had altercation and, then, a scuffle between the two took place. 20. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that when he (PW 7) had settled the accounts, Sanjib had accepted and even the accused, Biswajit, had accepted the accounts, but accused Biswajit wanted the money and Sanjib was asking for time and, at first, they had altercation and, then, a scuffle between the two took place. 20. PW 7 has deposed that he had seen the dead body of Sanjib, who had injury on his head and also on the face and that, near the dead body, there were stones, which had blood stains. 21. PW 17, an employee of Sanjib's shop, who knew accused, Biswajit, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, Biswajit and Gopi (since acquitted) had scuffle with the deceased regarding settlement of some account and that Biswajit and Gopi had said that they would teach him (Sanjib) a lesson. 22. The above discussion brings us to the evidence of PW 6, whose evidence is that he knows the accused and also knew the deceased. As regards the occurrence, PW 6 has deposed that on the night of the occurrence, at about 10:00 pm, when he was proceeding towards his house from the house of his elder brother, accused Biswajit and deceased Sanjib were having altercation and when he enquired from them, they told him that there was some reason. It is in the evidence of PW 6 that he came to know, on the following day, between 11.30 to 12.00 a.m., the occurrence of death of Sanjib Singh had taken place. 23. It is in the evidence of PW 6 that both, accused, Biswajit, as well as the said deceased, were cable operators and at the time, when he had seen the said two persons having altercation, the nearby shops were closed. It is also in the evidence of PW 6 that - the police came to the house of the accused and recovered blood stained money and one paper from under the bed of accused Biswajit and that there was blood stains even on the clothes found by police. 24. It is the further evidence of PW 6 that in the bathroom, Biswajit's long pant (i.e., trouser) was found stained with blood and that the trouser was wet. PW 6 has also deposed that police had seized the money, paper and the trouser by Ext. 2, Ext. 2(1) being his signature. 25. 24. It is the further evidence of PW 6 that in the bathroom, Biswajit's long pant (i.e., trouser) was found stained with blood and that the trouser was wet. PW 6 has also deposed that police had seized the money, paper and the trouser by Ext. 2, Ext. 2(1) being his signature. 25. PW 6 has also deposed that at the house of Biswajit, apart from Biswajit, his parents also lived there, but he has clarified that the blood stained money was found in Biswajit's room and a blood stained shirt was found in the bathroom of Biswajit's house. PW 6 has further deposed that when the said seizures were made, Biswajit was not present at his home. 26. In his cross-examination, PW 6 has clarified that he does not know where Biswajit sleeps in his house and he does not know as to whose money and paper had been found, which had stains of blood. In fact, according to the evidence of PW 6, the house of the accused is a railway quarter. 27. In his cross-examination, PW 6 has reiterated that accused Biswajit and the said deceased were having altercation on the road and that both used to work as cable operators and that there was a dispute, with regard to some dues of the business, which they had done, but he was not aware as to how much was the money involved. 28. Coming to the evidence of PW 8, we notice that according to his evidence, on the night of the occurrence, at about 11.05 p.m., when he was proceeding from his shop towards his house, Sanjib called him from his shop near the Loknath Mandir, which is located near the shop of Sanjib, and he (Sanjib) told PW 8 that he would also go with him (PW 8) and, then, Sanjib, too, went to his house and he (Sanjib) went to his house and, on the following day, Sanjib's dead body was found near the Loknath Mandir. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution. 29. The previous statement of PW 8, made before the police, however, shows that he had seen accused Biswajit inside his shop and dead body of Sanjib outside. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution. 29. The previous statement of PW 8, made before the police, however, shows that he had seen accused Biswajit inside his shop and dead body of Sanjib outside. In the face of the previous statement given to the police by PW 8, his evidence, given in the Court, that Sanjib went with him to his house at about 11.05 pm, cannot be believed and must, therefore, be discarded as unbelievable. 30. According to the evidence of PW 1, he knows accused Biswajit and that on the night of the occurrence, in the year 2005, when closed his shop and proceeded towards his house to have his dinner, he found that the shop of Sanjib (since deceased) was closed. PW 1 has deposed that other shops, in the market, were also closed. PW 1 has also deposed that he went home to have his meals and after having his meals, he came to his shop and, while opening his shop, he heard a sound coming from the middle of two shops, whereupon he came out and saw light in the shop of Santosh (PW 9), and, then, he called Santosh (PW 9) and both of them went to the place, from where the sound had come, and found a man lying in injured condition. Thereafter, he (PW 1) went to his brother's PCO and called police, police arrived at the scene of occurrence, but the person, who was lying injured, died before he could be shifted to hospital. Later on, he (PW 1) came to learn that the said dead body was of Sanjib. 31. Close on the heels of PW 1, PW 9 has deposed that he always sleeps at night at his shop and, on the night of the occurrence, too, he came to his shop at about 12.00 a.m. and slept at his shop and that accused Biswajit, sometimes, sleeps at his shop. 31. Close on the heels of PW 1, PW 9 has deposed that he always sleeps at night at his shop and, on the night of the occurrence, too, he came to his shop at about 12.00 a.m. and slept at his shop and that accused Biswajit, sometimes, sleeps at his shop. It is in the evidence of PW 9 that on the opposite side of his shop is the shop of Monu @ Narayan Paul (PW 1), who came and told him that he (Monu) had heard a sound near the shop of Swapan Deb, whereupon PW 9 got up from his bed, took a box of match sticks and a candle and, in the light of the burning candle, they found an injured lying, but they could not recognize the injured as the injured was lying with his face down. It is in the evidence of PW 9 that he (PW 9) asked Monu (PW 1) to call police, police came and the injured died in their presence. It is in the evidence of PW 9 that he (PW 9), after many people assembled there, could recognize that the injured was Sanjib Singh. 32. It is also in the evidence of PW 9 that accused Biswajit was a business partner of the said deceased and there was quarrel between them with regard to monetary transaction and that police engaged sniffer dog, which went to the house of accused Biswajit, and police recovered money and clothes from his bed and that he (PW 9) saw some blood stains on the currency notes, which the police had seized. According to the evidence of PW 9, police also seized three boulders, which were found lying by the side of the said dead body. What may also be noted is that the evidence of PW 9 is that when he (PW 9) came out of his shop, he (PW 9) saw accused Biswajit busy in unlocking the door of his shop and, at that time, accused Biswajit was wearing jeans and a sweater-like ganjee. 33. What may also be noted is that the evidence of PW 9 is that when he (PW 9) came out of his shop, he (PW 9) saw accused Biswajit busy in unlocking the door of his shop and, at that time, accused Biswajit was wearing jeans and a sweater-like ganjee. 33. It may be noted that the evidence of PW 18 (Investigating Officer of the case) is that sniffer dog led them to the house of the accused-appellant, Biswajit, and recovery of the blood-stained currency notes, etc, as has been deposed to by PW 6, PW 9, PW 10, PW 11, PW 13, PW 15 and PW 18, were seized from the house of accused Biswajit. 34. We, now, come to the evidence of PW 10, widow of the said deceased. Her evidence is that Sanjib, on the day of occurrence, left his house at 5 pm and returned. It is in the evidence of PW 10 that her husband (Sanjib) left home, once again, at about 10.30 pm, but before leaving the house, Sanjib told her (PW 10) that he would go to the house of a person to take money and hand over the same to another person and, while Sanjib was leaving the house, she (PW 10) saw accused Biswajit and accused Gopi (since acquitted) and they invited him (Sanjib) and though she (PW 10) asked her husband not to go with Biswajit and Gopi, Biswajit and Gopi told her (PW 10) that she need not worry and that they would send her husband back immediately. 35. What is of paramount importance to note, now, is that, according to the evidence of PW 10, widow of the said deceased, at about 1.00 a.m., on that very night, Santosh and Gopi came to her (PW 10's) house and called her husband's brother by name and, then, her husband's elder brother, who was also present in the house, opened the door and Santosh and Gopi told him that Sanjib was lying with injury on his head between two shops, whereupon she, her husband's elder brother and elder sister of her husband, went to the place of occurrence and saw injury on the head of her husband and blood was oozing out therefrom staining the whole body. It is in the evidence of PW 10 that somebody informed police and she became senseless on seeing the dead body. 36. It is in the evidence of PW 10 that somebody informed police and she became senseless on seeing the dead body. 36. It is in the evidence of PW 10 that Biswajit and Gopi had called her husband at late hours and there was monetary dispute between her husband and accused Biswajit and it is because of this reason that Biswajit had killed her husband and that accused Biswajit had always threatened to kill Sanjib over monetary dispute. 37. In her cross-examination, PW 10 has clarified that at the time of departure of her husband, at 10.30 p.m., she was also present in front of their gate and as she did not understand Bengali, she called her mother-in-law, who accordingly came. It is in the evidence of PW 10 that she had noticed that her husband was in tension and, on being asked, he told her (PW 10) that there was some monetary dispute with the accused. 38. The evidence of PW 10, as regards the fact that the Biswajit and Gopi had come and taken away her husband, could not be shaken at all by the defence in her cross-examination inasmuch as there was, virtually, no cross-examination of PW 10, particularly, on the aspect of her evidence that Sanjib left his house on the night of the occurrence, at about 10.30 p.m., in the company of the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik, and the said Gopi; it was merely suggested to PW 10 by the defence that her evidence, given to the effect that the said two accused had called her husband, on the night of the occurrence, is not correct. This suggestion was, however, denied by PW 10. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 10. 39. Let us, now, discuss the evidence of PW 11, wife of Late Ranjit Singh, elder brother of the deceased, Sanjib Singh. This suggestion was, however, denied by PW 10. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 10. 39. Let us, now, discuss the evidence of PW 11, wife of Late Ranjit Singh, elder brother of the deceased, Sanjib Singh. According to her evidence, on the day of the occurrence, between 10.00 and 10.20 pm, Sanjib was at his house and he was called by accused Biswajit and Gopi, as told to her by the wife and mother of the deceased, and, at about 11.00 or 11.30 pm, Santosh and Gopi came to their house and informed them that Sanjib was lying injured between the shops of Manu Paul and a tailor, whereupon she (PW 11), her husband and widow of the said deceased went to the place, where Sanjib was lying, they saw injury on the head of Sanjib and stones lying by his side and when her husband met the injured, he uttered the word 'Biswajit' and nothing else, but her (PW 11's) husband is no longer alive and after saying the word Biswajit, Sanjib died, whereupon her husband lodged Ejahar with the police and, on the next day, police brought sniffer dog, which, as reported by her (PW 11) husband, went to the house of accused Biswajit. 40. We do not find the evidence of PW 11 inspiring confidence inasmuch as PW 10 has, nowhere, deposed that she had reported to PW 11 that her husband had been called and taken away by accused Biswajit and accused Gopi (since acquitted). This apart, the assertion of PW 11, that injured Sanjib had uttered the word, "Biswajit", before he succumbed to his injuries, would have appeared in the Ejahar, which the husband of PW 11 had lodged with the police had Sanjib uttered the name of Biswajit. But the said Ejahar gives no indication, at all, that the injured Sanjib had uttered the word, "Biswajit", before he died. In fact, the Ejahar, which late Ranjit Singh had lodged, clearly stated that some unknown persons had killed his brother, Sinjib, by hitting him with stone. 41. But the said Ejahar gives no indication, at all, that the injured Sanjib had uttered the word, "Biswajit", before he died. In fact, the Ejahar, which late Ranjit Singh had lodged, clearly stated that some unknown persons had killed his brother, Sinjib, by hitting him with stone. 41. We may pause, at this stage, to point out that though the said Ejahar, which Late Ranjit Singh had lodged, has been treated as the First Information Report, the evidence, given by PW 1, when read in the light of the evidence of PW 9, clearly shows that long before the Ejahar was lodged by Late Ranjit Singh, police had already been telephonically informed by PW 9 from the PCO of his brother and police had accordingly arrived at the scene of the occurrence. 42. Coming to the evidence of PW 12, we notice that, according to his evidence, on 10.03.2005, when he had been working as Senior Scientific Officer at Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, he had received, in a sealed packet, one currency note of fifty rupees denomination with suspected blood stains, another currency note with five rupees denomination with suspected blood stains, one pay slip of October, 2005, of Jitendra Bhowmik (i.e., father of the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik) with suspected blood stains, one sealed packet of one woolen full-sleeve open shirt suspected to have blood marks, one long pant said to be washed and suspected to have blood stains and three concrete stones with suspected blood stains. The result, according to the evidence of PW 12, was that the fifty rupees note, the five rupees note, the full sleeve sweater and the concrete stones gave positive test for human blood; but the trouser gave negative test for human blood. However, the group of the blood, according to the evidence of PW 12, could not be ascertained due to inconclusive result of the same and, accordingly, he (PW 12) submitted his report, which is Ext. 3. 43. Let us, now, come to the evidence of PW 16, mother of the said deceased. However, the group of the blood, according to the evidence of PW 12, could not be ascertained due to inconclusive result of the same and, accordingly, he (PW 12) submitted his report, which is Ext. 3. 43. Let us, now, come to the evidence of PW 16, mother of the said deceased. Her evidence is to the effect that she knows both the accused, i.e., Biswajit and Gopi (since acquitted), who were visitors to her house, and that, on the night of the occurrence, at about 10.00 or 10.30 pm, Biswajit and Gopi called and took her son, Sanjib, away with them and, after about half-an-hour, they heard that Sanjib had been injured and, on hearing the news, she became unconscious. In her cross-examination, PW 16 has clarified that, when her son, Sanjib, was leaving home, she asked him as to where he was going at night and, at that point of time, Gopi (since acquitted) and Biswajit told her that Sanjib would come back later. It needs to be noted that PW 16 has denied, in her cross-examination, the suggestion of the defence that the said two accused had not called and taken away her son, Sanjib, from his house and her evidence, as regards the fact that the accused-appellant, Biswajit, was the one of the persons, who had taken away her son, Sanjib, from her house on the night of the occurrence, at about 10.30 p.m., remained unshaken. 44. PW 18 is the witness to the seizure of the money recovered with the help of sniffer dog. According to him, the sniffer dog led them to the house of accused Biswajit and police recovered currency notes with blood stains and a pay slip with suspected blood stains from the house of accused Biswajit. 45. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that in his statement, recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused-appellant, Biswajit, has stated that his father sustained injury on his head and the blood-stains, which the currency notes and the pay-slip bore, were, actually, the blood of his father. No evidence, however, exists on record to show that Jatindra Bhowmik (father of accused Biswajit Bhowmik) had sustained injury on his head and/or that the said blood stains on currency notes and the pay-slip were of his father. 46. No evidence, however, exists on record to show that Jatindra Bhowmik (father of accused Biswajit Bhowmik) had sustained injury on his head and/or that the said blood stains on currency notes and the pay-slip were of his father. 46. Even if, for a moment, we take the view that the said currency notes and the pay-slip, which had been found stained with human blood, were, at any point of time, in possession of the accused-appellant, Biswajit, the evidence, as has been discussed above, clearly shows that there was a dispute between the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik, on the one hand, and Sanjib (since deceased), on the other, with regard to a sum of Rs. 800/-, which Sanjib had admitted to be payable to the accused-appellant, Biswajit. While, however, Sanjib wanted some time to make the payment, the accused-appellant, Biswajit, was insisting that the payment be made immediately. This led to an altercation between the two and, eventually, a scuffle took place between them, but PW 7 intervened and separated them. The evidence of PW 17, an employee of Sanjib, shows that the appellant had vowed to teach a lesson to Sanjib. Even the evidence of PW 6 clearly shows that Sanjib and the accused were having altercation even at about 10.00 p.m., when PW 6 happened to close his shop and proceed towards his house. The facts, thus, that the accused-appellant had altercation with Sanjib and even had a scuffle with him stands well proved by the evidence on record. The evidence on record also clearly reveals, in the light of the evidence of PW 10 (widow of the deceased) and PW 16, i.e., the mother of the deceased, that Sanjib left his house, at about 10-30 p.m., in the company of the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik, and accused Gopi (since acquitted) and, at that point of time, Sanjib told his wife (PW 10) that he would be taking money from someone so as to pay someone else. 47. Thus, what surfaces from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that Sanjib left his house, at about 10.30 p.m., in the company of the accused-appellant and Gopi (since acquitted) and, at about 12.00 O'clock, on that very night, Sanjib was found lying injured near the shop of Biswajit. 47. Thus, what surfaces from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that Sanjib left his house, at about 10.30 p.m., in the company of the accused-appellant and Gopi (since acquitted) and, at about 12.00 O'clock, on that very night, Sanjib was found lying injured near the shop of Biswajit. Since there was no quarrel or dispute between Gopi and the said deceased, Gopi could have been acquitted and has been rightly acquitted by the Court below and this acquittal we cannot interfere with. 48. However, as far as the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik, is concerned, since the evidence on record reveals that the accused-appellant wanted repayment of his dues, he (accused-appellant) had a motive. There is no evidence, and it is not even claimed by the accused-appellant, that he received his dues. Consequently, it can safely be held that the accused-appellant had a motive to harm Sanjib. Since the dispute, with regard the money, which the said deceased had, was with the accused-appellant and it was the accused-appellant, who was with Sanjib at the time, when he left his house, at about 10.30 p.m., on the night of the occurrence, the onus lied on the accused-appellant to show as to where he had left Sanjib, on the night of the occurrence, after they had taken Sanjib from his house. No evidence was, however, given, in this regard, by the accused-appellant and no explanation, plausible or otherwise, is discernible, in this regard, from the evidence on record. 49. What surfaces from the above discussion is that the accused-appellant (Biswajit Bhowmik) had the motive to harm Sanjib and since Sanjib was last seen with the accused-appellant, who had inimical relationship with Sanjib, and, thereafter, Sanjib was never seen alive, the learned trial Court had every justification for holding that it was the accused-appellant, who had injured Sanjib so severely that Sanjib died. 50. The standard of proof required, for the purpose of convicting a person, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, has been laid down, with great clarity, in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. 50. The standard of proof required, for the purpose of convicting a person, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, has been laid down, with great clarity, in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P., reported in 1952 SCR 1091 wherein the Court has pointed out that the circumstances, which are relied upon, must be fully established and the chain of evidence, furnished by the circumstances so established, should make a complete case against the accused and shall not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The relevant observations, appearing in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar (supra), read as under : It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 51. Referring to the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar (supra), the Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , has pointed out that in a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is required to be drawn shall be fully established and the facts, so established, shall be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 52. Elaborately dealing with the principles, laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar (supra), the Supreme Court, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), pointed out, at para 152, thus : 152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 53. Referring to the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar (supra), the Supreme Court has pointed out, in Deonandan Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar ( AIR 1955 SC 801 ), too, that in a case of circumstantial evidence, not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The State of Bihar ( AIR 1955 SC 801 ), too, that in a case of circumstantial evidence, not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Referring to the facts of Deonandan Mishra (supra), the Supreme Court pointed out that in a case like this, where various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and when he (accused) offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link, which completes the chain. 54. The case of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 197 , is a case, which is relevant, while considering the theory of last seen together. In Joseph (supra), the facts were, as noted by the Supreme Court, in its subsequent decision, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 , as under : 20. In Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 197 ; the facts were that the deceased was an employee of a school. The appellant representing himself to be the husband of one of the sisters of Gracy, the deceased, went to the St. Mary's Convent where she was employed and on a false pretext that her mother was ill and had been admitted to a hospital took her away with the permission of the Sister in charge of the Convent, PW-5. The case of the prosecution was that later the appellant not only raped her and robbed her of her ornaments, but also laid her on the rail track to be run over by a passing train. It was also found as a fact that the deceased was last seen alive only in his company, and that on information furnished by the appellant in the course of investigation, the jewels of the deceased, which were sold to PW-11 by the appellant, were seized. It was also found as a fact that the deceased was last seen alive only in his company, and that on information furnished by the appellant in the course of investigation, the jewels of the deceased, which were sold to PW-11 by the appellant, were seized. There was clear evidence to prove that those jewels were worn by the deceased at the time when she left the Convent with the appellant. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant did not even attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating and connecting him with the crime by his adamant attitude of total denial of everything, in this backdrop, the Court held :- Such incriminating links of facts could, if at all, have been only explained by the appellant, and by nobody else, they being personally and exclusively within his knowledge. Of late, courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed (see State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 ). That missing link to connect the accused appellant, we find in this case provided by the blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstances pointed out which, in our view, with sufficient and reasonable certainty on the facts proved, connect the accused with the death and the cause for the death of Gracy. 55. From the observations, made above, it becomes clear that when a fact is explainable and within the special knowledge of the accused, feeing trial, and the accused chooses not to offer explanation, it becomes an additional link in the circumstances in the sense that the omission to explain is a missing link, which may be treated to have been supplied for arriving at the answer, which the circumstantial evidence makes or reach. 56. In Ram Gulam Choudhary & Ors. Vs. 56. In Ram Gulam Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 311 , the Supreme Court has pointed out that it is permissible, in a given case, to draw an inference from the silence of an accused if the answer could be given by the accused alone even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as Section 106 would apply to cases, where prosecution successfully proves the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn. 57. In fact, the case of Sahadevan @ Sagadevan Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 534 , is a case, which is closely akin to the case at hand, wherein the deceased was seen in the company of the appellant from the morning of March 5, 1985, till, at least, 5 p.m. on that day, when he was brought to his house and, thereafter, his dead body was found in the morning of March 6, 1985. In this fact situation, the Supreme Court observed : Therefore, it has become obligatory on the appellants to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them. This is on the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. In the instant case the appellants have failed to discharge this onus. In their statement under Section 313 CrPC they have not taken any specific stand whatsoever. 58. Having taken into consideration the cases of Joseph (supra), Ram Gulam (supra) and Sahadevan (supra), the Supreme Court has pointed out, in Kashi Ram (supra), that Section 106 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on him. 59. Hence, observes the Supreme Court, in Kashi Ram (supra), that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted with the company of the deceased. 59. Hence, observes the Supreme Court, in Kashi Ram (supra), that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted with the company of the deceased. The Supreme Court has, in fact, gone to the extent of observing that in such a case, the accused must furnish an explanation, which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory and if the accused does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden; but if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of the facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106. The Supreme Court has further pointed out, in Kashi Ram (supra), that if, in a case, resting on circumstantial evidence, the accused fails to offer reasonable explanation in discharging the burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106, his silence is an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. 60. Clarifying the object of Section 106, The Supreme Court has laid down, in Kashi Ram (supra), that Section 106 does not shift the burden of prove in a criminal trial inasmuch as the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution, but it lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon the facts, which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link, which completes the chain. In coming to this conclusion, the Court has referred to Naina Mohamed (AIR 1960 SC 218). The relevant observations, appearing in Kashi Ram (supra), read as under : 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Mad 218 . 61. Ordinarily, the circumstance of last seen together would be relevant, when it is established by the evidence on record that the time gap between the point of time, when the accused and the deceased were seen together alive, and when the deceased was found dead, is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased can be completely ruled out. Thus, the time gap between the accused person having been seen in the company of the deceased and the death of the deceased would be a material consideration for appreciation of evidence in such matters. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that it cannot be always stated that the evidence of last seen together must be rejected merely because the time gap between the point of time, when the accused persons were seen in the company of the deceased, and the coming into light of the offence committed is of a considerable long duration. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula in respect of duration of time gap. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula in respect of duration of time gap. Obviously, it would depend on the facts of a given case if the circumstance of the last seen together is so material that it can lead the Court to conclude that none, but the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and was, therefore, the one, who had caused death of the deceased. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the cases of Bodhraj Vs. State of J & K, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45 , State of U.P. Vs. Satish, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114 , Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy Vs. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 10 SCC 172 and Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Panjab, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 438 . The Supreme Court has summarized the theory of last seen together, in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , at Para 34, as follows : From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case. 62. In the backdrop of the law, as discussed above, when the facts of the present case are taken into account, it becomes clear that though the deceased, Sanjib, was seen last in the company of the accused-appellant, Biswajit Bhowmik, and his co-accused, Gopi (since acquitted), the fact remains that the dispute, with regard to payment of dues, was between the accused, on the one hand, and the deceased, on the other, and though the deceased had agreed to make payment and merely wanted time, the accused-appellant was unwilling to give time and this had resulted into an altercation and, eventually, there was a scuffle between them and they had to be separated. Even while leaving his house, the deceased had told his wife that he was to borrow money from someone in order to make payment to another person. If the sequence of events are properly arranged and considered together, there remains no room for doubt that it was for the accused-appellant to explain, in the face of the evidence on record, as to when, where and under what circumstances he had part the company with the deceased. This was, however, not done by the accused-appellant. 63. In the face of the overwhelming evidence on record against the accused-appellant pointing to him as the one, who had killed Sanjib Singha, the silence of the accused-appellant and his inability to offer any explanation as to when, where and under what circumstances he happened to part company with the deceased with whom he had been seen having altercation twice, once in the evening by PW 9 and 7 and, later on, by PW 6 as late as at 10 o'clock at night and Sanjib was found almost dying at about 12 o'clock at night. 64. In a situation, as the present one, the omission, on the part of the accused to offer any explanation as to when, where and under what circumstances, if we may reiterate, he happened to part company with the deceased, Sanjib Singh, can be treated as the missing link and furnish an additional piece of evidence against the accused-appellant. 65. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find that the conviction of the accused-appellant, for the offence of murder, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. His conviction, therefore, does not need any interference nor does the sentence, which has been passed against him, calls for any interference by this Court. 66. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, we uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence passed against him. This appeal accordingly fails and the same shall stand dismissed. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed.