Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Allegedly having committed the murder of one Gangappa, having been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC, having been sentenced to life imprisonment, having been imposed with a fine of Rs.5, 000/- and having been directed to further undergo three years of simple imprisonment in default thereof, by judgment dated 06.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, the appellants, both named Bassappa, have approached this court. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 10.10.2004 one, Madhusudan (P.W.1), submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur wherein he claimed that around 7:15 PM he received a telephone call from Narayan, a watchman at the Thar Handloom, situated in Rambari Gali, Ramanlalji Purohit's building. The watchman informed him that a body of a dead man is lying in the narrow lane next to the building. He reached the building at 7:30 PM; he found that a crowd had gathered there. When he entered the lane, he discovered that a man, wearing pant and shirt and with naked feet, was lying dead. There was a plastic pipe around his neck. Subsequently, he informed the police at Jalori Gate Police Station. On the basis of the written report, a formal FIR, FIR No.389/2004, (Ex. P/48) was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC; the investigation began. Subsequently, both the appellants, Bassappa s/o Ramappa and Bassappa s/o Tipanna, were arrested and charged. 3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and submitted sixty documents. However, the defence neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 06.02.2006, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court. 4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution story unfolded as follows:- both the appellants and Gangappa, the deceased, were residents of village Nagalpur in Karnataka. Bassappa s/o Ramappa wanted to get his sister married in Rajasthan, as she was already married and there were some difficulties in her marriage. Gangappa had promised Bassappa s/o Ramappa that they would be able to find a suitable bridegroom for his sister. Therefore, on 06.10.2004, all three of them left for Barmer. They reached Barmer on 08.10.2004. They stayed at the house of Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2). Gangappa had promised Bassappa s/o Ramappa that they would be able to find a suitable bridegroom for his sister. Therefore, on 06.10.2004, all three of them left for Barmer. They reached Barmer on 08.10.2004. They stayed at the house of Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2). They informed Ashok Kumar Jain and his wife, Smt Nanda (P.W.5) that they were trying to find a boy for Bassappa’s sister. However, they couldn’t. Due to their failure to achieve their goal, there was some altercation between the two Bassappas and Gangappa. On 10.10.2004, Ashok Kumar Jain (P. W. 2) and his brother, Laxman (P.W. 3) dropped of the appellants and Gangappa at the railway Station. The appellants and Gangappa took a train from Barmer to Jodhpur. On 10.10.2004, in the evening, the body of the deceased was discovered in the lane as mentioned above. Meanwhile, on 10.10.2004, one of the Bassappas called Smt. Indira (P.W. 4) and informed her that no train was available from Jodhpur for Belgaon. Later, he informed her that they were detained by the police at the police station, and that Gangappa’s wife was with them. Still later on, on 11.10.2004, he informed her that they have gotten a train for Belgaon and they were leaving. The appellants reached their village around 15.10.2004. 5. Meanwhile, from the shirt worn by the deceased, Gangappa, the police noted the label inside the shirt. Taking their cue from the label which showed the name of and location of the tailor, they went to the Gangappa's village. At the village, they found that the appellants were conspicuously missing. Rudrappa (P.W.7), Vayppa (P.W.8), Vitthal (P.W.9) and Somnath (P.W.10) informed the police that both Bassappas had returned to the village. When they were asked about the whereabouts of Gangappa, they informed them that Gangappa has stayed back at Barmer/Jodhpur and shall be returning in a few days. The villagers also informed the police that both the Bassapas were in the village. But suddenly, they had disappeared when they saw the Rajasthan police in the village. Subsequently, both the appellants were arrested and charged. 6. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court : firstly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Yet, the learned Judge has failed to apply the principle with regard to appreciation of evidence in case of circumstantial evidence. 7. Subsequently, both the appellants were arrested and charged. 6. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court : firstly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Yet, the learned Judge has failed to apply the principle with regard to appreciation of evidence in case of circumstantial evidence. 7. Secondly, Gangappa had committed suicide by hanging. It is not a case of strangulation. Therefore, the learned judge has erred in convicting the appellants for murder. 8. Thirdly, the witnesses can be divided in two groups, firstly Rudrappa (P.W.7), Vayppa (P.W.8), Vitthal (P.W.9) and Somnath (P.W.10)—those persons who belonged to Gangappa's village; the other set consists of Ashok Kumar (P.W.2), Laxman (P. W. 3), Smt. Indra (P.W.4) and Smt. Nanda (P.W.5)—those persons at whose house the appellants had stayed with Gangappa at Barmer. According to the learned counsel, none of the witnesses belonging to Gangappa's village claimed that they had seen Gangappa leaving with the appellants. Thus, the basis of “last seen” is conspicuously missing. Hence, there are glaring gaps in the story of the prosecution. Therefore, all the circumstances do not unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. 9. Fourthly, when the police reached Gangappa’s village, the first set of witnesses were readily available. Yet, their statements were recorded after three days. There is no explanation for the delay in recording of their statements. Therefore, these persons have fabricated a false story and have falsely implicated the appellants. Moreover, as Rudrappa (P. W. 7) and Vitthal (P.W.9) are related to Gangappa, therefore, they are interested witnesses. Hence, their testimony should not be believed. 10. Fifthly, even other set of witnesses cannot be relied upon. For, according to Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2) the appellants were total strangers to him and his family members. Despite the fact that they were strangers to the second set of witnesses, no identification parade was ever held. The appellants were identified by these witnesses only in the Court. Hence, they are not reliable witnesses. Further, Smt. Indra (PW4) and Smt. Nanda (PW5) have turned hostile during trial. Thus, their testimony cannot be relied upon. 11. Sixthly, Smt. Indra (PW4) admitted in her cross-examination that “the only reason she is claiming that Bassappa had called her thrice on the phone is because the person claimed that it was Bassappa calling her”. Further, Smt. Indra (PW4) and Smt. Nanda (PW5) have turned hostile during trial. Thus, their testimony cannot be relied upon. 11. Sixthly, Smt. Indra (PW4) admitted in her cross-examination that “the only reason she is claiming that Bassappa had called her thrice on the phone is because the person claimed that it was Bassappa calling her”. But the prosecution has produced neither the relevant call details, nor any person who could testify that Bassappa had made a call from his shop/ place. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the call was, indeed, made by one of the Bassappas. 12. Seventhly, there is no motive for the appellants to kill Gangappa. The lack of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weakens such a case. Thus, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive behind the alleged murder. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish its case. 13. On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the prosecution has been able to show the circumstances through cogent evidence which unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused-appellants. 14. Secondly, the medical evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Dr. Jagdish Jutawat (P.W.6) and of the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 12), has clearly proved that Gangappa had suffered a homicidal death. He had not committed suicide. 15. Thirdly, Rudrappa (P.W.7) has clearly stated that he had seen his brother Gangappa leaving the village along with the appellants. Moreover, Vitthal(P.W.9) and Somnath (P.W.10) also informed the Court that prior to his departure, Gangappa told them that he would be going to Barmer along with the appellants. Thus, there is sufficient evidence about the last seen. 16. Fourthly, merely because the statements of Rudrappa (P.W.7), Vitthal (P.W.9) and Somenath (P.W.10) were recorded after three days of the police reached Gangappa's village, such a delay is not fatal to the prosecution. 17. Fifthly, Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2) and Laxman (P.W.3) have also stated in their testimonies that the appellants and Gangappa had stayed in their house from 08.10.2004 to 10.10.2004. On 10.10.2004, both these witnesses had left them at the railway station at Barmer. Hence, on both the occasions, Gangappa was last seen with the appellants. 18. 17. Fifthly, Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2) and Laxman (P.W.3) have also stated in their testimonies that the appellants and Gangappa had stayed in their house from 08.10.2004 to 10.10.2004. On 10.10.2004, both these witnesses had left them at the railway station at Barmer. Hence, on both the occasions, Gangappa was last seen with the appellants. 18. Sixthly, since the appellants had already stayed with Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2) and Laxman (P.W.3), Smt. Indra (P.W.4) and Smt. Nanda (P.W.5) in their house for three days, the appellants were known to these witnesses. Thus, there was no need for the investigating agency to hold a test identification parade. 19. Seventhly, according to the witnesses, Gangappa had promised Bassappa s/o Ramappa that he would be able to locate a bridegroom for his sister. However, he failed to do so. There was some altercation between the appellants and Gangappa over the fact that he had caused financial loss to the appellants as they had spent money in traveling from Karnataka to Rajasthan. It is out of this frustration, they had killed Gangappa. Hence, the motive was also proved by the prosecution. 20. Eighthly, the conduct of both the appellants is suspicious. Upon their return to the village, they had given a false explanation about the absence of Gangappa. Their false explanation has been testified by Rudrappa (P.W.7), Vitthal(P.W.9) and Somnath (P.W.10). Furthermore, upon seeing the police in the village, both the appellants had absconded for three days. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment. 21. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record and examined the judgment. 22. The principle regarding the appreciation of evidence in case of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated many a times by the Apex Court. Recently, in the case of Brajendrasingh v State of M. P. (2012) 4 SCC 289 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 27. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. 28. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial. 23. Similarly, in the case of Shymal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 7 SCC 646 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as under: Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to take caution that it does not rely upon conjectures or suspicion and the same should not be permitted to take the place of legal proof. 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 guilt of the accused. 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. 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. 24. Thus, this Court is required to see whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case through cogent and sufficient evidence which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused or not? 25. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that it is a case of suicide and not a case of homicidal death. He would like this court to believe that Gangappa had hung himself with the plastic pipe; in fact, he was not strangulated with the flexible plastic pipe by the appellants. However, his contention is belied by the evidence available on record. According to post-mortem report (Ex. P. 12), the face was congested and the tongue was protruding between his teeth. There was localized hematoma on occipital region under the scalp, about 4 x 4 cm. There was another localized hematoma on the temporal lobe of the right side of the brain. There was a soft rubber pipe on the neck with knot on left side of the neck, anterior aspect, which was taken in possession. Describing the ligature mark, the report reads that ligature, 34 cm. X 1 cm neck, more obliquely more prominent on anterior and posterior part of neck, in upper half portion with abrasion 2 cm X 1 cm (unclear) the ligature. The mark is grooved and the color is dark brown. On dissection the underlying skin and tissue is healthy, the skin is parchment like and glistening white. Furthermore, the body had sustained five abrasions on elbow posterior, Knee lower part, heel planter aspect, left leg 4/3 (unclear), left elbow. According to the medical report, all these injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of pressure on neck due to ligature around the neck. 26. Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (P.W.6) has proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 12) and has elaborately explained the said report. 27. Modi, the well-known medical jurist, in his book, Medical Jurisprudence (Ed 24th ,Second Reprint 2012), explains that asphyxia can be caused by hanging or by strangulation, besides other reasons. However, there are distinct differences between handing and suffocation. They are as under:- S. No. Hanging Strangulation 1 Mostly suicidal. Mostly homicidal 2 Face – Usually pale and petechiae* rare. 27. Modi, the well-known medical jurist, in his book, Medical Jurisprudence (Ed 24th ,Second Reprint 2012), explains that asphyxia can be caused by hanging or by strangulation, besides other reasons. However, there are distinct differences between handing and suffocation. They are as under:- S. No. Hanging Strangulation 1 Mostly suicidal. Mostly homicidal 2 Face – Usually pale and petechiae* rare. Face – Congested, livid and marked with petechiae*. 3 Saliva – Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest Saliva – No such dribbling. 4 Fracture of the larynx and trachea – Very rate and may be found Fracture of the larynx trachea and hyoid bone 5 Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body – Usually not present. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body – usually present. (Only the relevant dissimilarities have been extracted above). * Petechia:- A small spot, generally reddish or purple and ranging in size from a pinpoint to a pinhead, appearing under the epidermis and caused by extravasation of blood. The feature described by Auguste Tardieu as characteristic of asphyxia; commonly seen in the scalp, face, eyelids or conjunctiva following strangling, but not confined to cases of violence. 28. A comparison of the chart mentioned above with the findings given in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P. 12) clearly reveals that Gangappa's face was congested and his tongue was protruding between teeth. This is one of the first indications that he was strangulated. Secondly, there was no dribbling of saliva on his face. The absence of dribbling on Gangappa’s face is a second indication that he had been strangulated. According to Modi in suffocation, there would be presence of abrasion near the ligature mark, but not so in hanging. According to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P. 12) there was an abrasion near the ligature mark. This is the third indication that Ganaappa was strangulated. Moreover, since the body had five abrasions—all over the body - since there were injuries on his head and on his brain, and since these injuries were ante-mortem in nature, obviously Gangappa was assaulted prior to his being strangulated. 29. Although Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has tried to argue that Gangappa had hung himself in order to commit suicide, thereafter his body fell down. According to Dr. 29. Although Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has tried to argue that Gangappa had hung himself in order to commit suicide, thereafter his body fell down. According to Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (P. W.6) even if the dead body had fallen, it would not have suffered the injuries sustained by Gangappa. Furthermore, the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and not post-mortem ones. Thus, these injuries were caused while Gangappa was alive and not after he had died. Thus, the medical evidence clearly proves that Gangappa's death was homicidal in nature and not suicidal one. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel about the nature of death is unacceptable. 30. The learned counsel has doubted the veracity of the testimonies of Rudrappa (P.W.7), Vitthal (P.W.9) and Somenath (P.W.10) ostensibly on the ground that their statements were recorded by the police after some delay. However, a lapse on the part of the investigating agency would not strengthen the case of the appellants. Moreover, such a lapse would not make the testimonies of these witnesses doubtful, especially when their testimony could not be demolished in cross-examination. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel is without any merit. 31. As far as the other evidence is concerned, Rudrappa (P.W.7) tells the court that Gangappa was his younger brother. According to him, on 06.10.2004, when his younger brother left the village, he was with the appellants. Vitthal(P.W.9) and Somnath (P.W.10) also inform the Court that just few days prior to leaving his village, Gangappa had informed them that he will be going to Rajasthan with the appellants. Thus, the fact that Gangappa was last seen, while leaving the village with the appellants, is well established. 32. Similarly, Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2) has testified that his wife, Smt. Nanda (P.W. 5), belonged to Belgaon in Karnataka. According to him, on 08.10.2004, the appellants came to his house along with a person. Since his wife belongs to Belgaon, they extended their hospitality to the appellants and to the third person. The appellants came with the photograph of their sister and asked them if they knew any suitable boy. The witness told them that he does not know any suitable body. Despite the fact that he had asked them to leave the next day, they stayed one more day at his house. The witness had hoped that they would leave his house on 10.10.2004. The witness told them that he does not know any suitable body. Despite the fact that he had asked them to leave the next day, they stayed one more day at his house. The witness had hoped that they would leave his house on 10.10.2004. He, therefore, bought tickets for them from Barmer to Jodhpur. They left for Jodhpur on that day. They left with Gangappa. 33. Likewise, Laxman (P.W.3) testified that he knew the appellants. According to him, on 08.10.2005, both the appellants along with Gangappa had come to his house. They had stayed at his house for two nights. He and his brother, Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W.2), had dropped them of at the Railway Station; the appellants and Gangappa had left for Jodhpur. Thus, both the witnesses testify to the fact that on the last occasion, Gangappa was seen alive with the appellants. Hence, the prosecution has firmly established the factum of last seen. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel with regard to the lack of evidence about last seen is without any merit. 34. In the case of Shyamal Ghosh (supra) the Apex Court has opined that “Once the last seen theory comes into play, the onus was on the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased after they were together seen alive.” However, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., the appellants have not offered any explanation about as to what happened to Gangappa after they reached Jodhpur by train. Their silence on this point also points to their guilt. 35. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since Smt. Indra (P.W. 4) and Smt. Nanda (P.W. 5) have been declared as hostile witnesses, their testimony cannot be read against the appellants. However, the said contention is highly misplaced. For, it is a settled principle of law that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be thrown out in totality. The part of the testimony which supports the prosecution can, indeed, be accepted. In the case of C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ( (2010) 9 SCC 567 = 2010(4) RLW 3096 (SC)), at page 595 of the report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that “… the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. In the case of C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ( (2010) 9 SCC 567 = 2010(4) RLW 3096 (SC)), at page 595 of the report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that “… the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.” 36. Although Smt. Indra (P.W.4) and Smt. Nanda (P.W.5) have been declared as hostile witness, but even then in their cross-examination, by the public prosecution, they have admitted parts of the statement given by them to the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. To a large extent, they have supported the case of the prosecution. 37. In her examination-in-chief, Smt. Indra (P.W.4) claims that the appellants had come to her house on 08.10.2004 along with Gangappa. They had stayed with them for three days and thereafter they had left for Jodhpur. She had received a call from Bassappa who had informed her that no train is available from Jodhpur to Belgaon. She denied the fact that she heard any conversation between these three persons. She further claimed that she did not know as to why they had come to Barmer. At this juncture, the public prosecutor declared her as a hostile witness. 38. In her cross-examination, she has admitted the fact while these persons stayed, there was an altercation between them: Gangappa had hit one of the Bassapas with a wood. She had also admitted that on 09.10.2004, after some differences had arisen between the three, Gangappa had slept alone, while both Bassapas had slept together. She further admitted that on 10.10.2004, her elder brother-in-law, Ashok Kumar Jain (P.W. 2) had dropped all three of them, in the morning, for their journey to Jodhpur. She further admitted that she had received a call from Bassapa where he had informed her that no train was available for Belgaon. She further admitted that on 11.11.2004, she again received a call from Bassapa informing her that they are being detained at the police station and that Gangappa's wife is also with them. She further admitted that she had received a call from Bassapa where he had informed her that no train was available for Belgaon. She further admitted that on 11.11.2004, she again received a call from Bassapa informing her that they are being detained at the police station and that Gangappa's wife is also with them. She further admitted that in the evening, she again received a third call from Bassapa informing her that they had found a train for Belgaon and they were leaving for Belgaon. 39. In her re-examination, by the learned counsel for the accused, she claims that since the person speaking on the phone claimed that he is Basspa, therefore, she claims that the phone calls were made by Bassapa. She further admitted that she could not identify Bassappa from his voice. 40. Similar statements have been given by Smt. Nanda (P.W.5), who has also turned hostile. But in her cross-examination, by the learned Public Prosecutor at the trial Court, she has admitted to her statement given to the police since her statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and her testimony is similar to the testimony of Smt. Indra (P.W.4), therefore, her testimony need not be reproduced here. However, as the testimonies of these two witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, their testimonies have rightly been relied upon by the learned judge. 41. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution has neither produced any call details, nor produced any person to testify that Bassappa had made a call to Smt. Indira (P.W. 4). However even this argument is without any basis. The prosecution has produced the call details (EX. P/54) which clearly shows that phone calls were received by Ashok Kumar Jain’s family from Jodhpur. Secondly, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., neither of Bassappa had claimed that someone else has impersonated them and has made the phone calls. Thirdly, there is no animosity between the two Bassappas and Smt. Indira (P. W. 4) for her to falsely implicate them by claiming that one of the Bassappas had called her. In her re-examination she had claimed that she was stating that Bassappa had called, because the person had said so. This admission would not dilute her testimony on the point that Bassappa had called her. 42. In her re-examination she had claimed that she was stating that Bassappa had called, because the person had said so. This admission would not dilute her testimony on the point that Bassappa had called her. 42. Existence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence is not a sine qua non. In case the prosecution proves the existence of proof motive, it merely strengthens the prosecution case. But its absence is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove the motive through the testimony of Indra (P.W.4). When Smt. Indra (P.W.4) was confronted by the learned Public Prosecutor with her statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she admitted the fact that she had told the police that there was an altercation between Gangappa and Bassapa s/o Ramappa. Bassapa was aggressively speaking to Gangappa; he was telling him that he had brought them to Barmer and had caused him to spend a large amount of money, yet he could not get Bassapa's sister engaged. Gangappa was trying to explain and was trying to cool him down. She further claims that it is true that Bassapa had told her that Ganapa had hit them with a piece of wood. Thus, there was some altercation between Gangappa and the appellants as Gangappa had promised them that he would be able to find a suitable boy for appellant No.1 Bassapa's sister. However, despite the fact that they came from Karnataka to Barmer, Rajasthan despite the fact that they spent money on the travel, they were disappointed that Gangappa could not find a boy for Bassapa's sister. On the next day, all three of them had left the house in the morning. In the evening, a dead body was discovered at Jodhpur. Thus, there is sufficient motive for the appellants to kill Gangappa. 43. According to Rudrappa (P.W.7) when the appellants returned to the village, he inquired about Gangappa’s whereabouts. They were informed that he would be coming after eight days. They further told Rudrappa that Gangappa had sent his cloths. 44. Similarly Vitthal (P.W.9) testifies that when the appellants came to their village after fifteen days, he asked them as to the whereabouts of his cousin brother, Gangappa. They told that Gangappa stayed at Jodhpur and was planning to go to Barmer as he had left his diary there. They further told Rudrappa that Gangappa had sent his cloths. 44. Similarly Vitthal (P.W.9) testifies that when the appellants came to their village after fifteen days, he asked them as to the whereabouts of his cousin brother, Gangappa. They told that Gangappa stayed at Jodhpur and was planning to go to Barmer as he had left his diary there. 45. Likewise Somnath (P.W.10) states that when he asked the appellants about the whereabouts of Gangappa. They informed him that he had stayed back in Rajasthan. They further informed him he would come back after one or two days. 46. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that in case the accused persons give a false explanation about the whereabouts of the deceased, the falsity of the explanation is a piece of evidence which forms a link in the chain of circumstances to be read against them. After all, such a false explanation point to their endeavor to conceal their crime. As revealed by the testimonies of Rudrappa (P.W.7), Vitthal (P.W.9) and Somenath (P.W.10), the appellants had given a false explanation with regard to whereabouts of Rangappa. Thus, their false explanation is glaring evidence revealing their guilt. 47. Although absconding by an accused by itself does not prove his guilt, but an explanation has to be offered by the accused as to why he/ she suddenly disappeared. According to Umesh Chand (P.W.11), the police officer who went to Gangappa's village, when he reached Gangappa's village in Karnataka, he was told by the villagers that the appellants were in the village. However, when the police had arrived at the village, the appellants had suddenly disappeared from the village. According to him, both the appellants were arrested three days later. In their statement recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants have not offered any explanation for their sudden dis-appearance from the village. Apparently, they had absconded from the village after seeing the police party. Hence, even their absconding reveals their guilt. 48. According to him, both the appellants were arrested three days later. In their statement recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants have not offered any explanation for their sudden dis-appearance from the village. Apparently, they had absconded from the village after seeing the police party. Hence, even their absconding reveals their guilt. 48. In the case of Shyamal Ghosh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme opined that “It is true that merely being away from his residence having apprehension of being apprehended by the police is not a very unnatural conduct of an accused, so as to be looked upon as absconding per se where the court would draw an adverse inference….” But we cannot overlook the fact that present case is not a case where the accused were innocent and had a reasonable excuse for being away from their normal place of residence. In fact, they had left the village and were not available for days altogether. Absconding in such a manner and for such a long period is a relevant consideration.” The same logic is applicable in the present case. 49. Hence through the evidence of last seen, through the medical evidence, through the evidence about the false explanation, through the evidence about absconding, the prosecution has succeeded in unerringly establishing the guilt of the appellants. 50. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal; it is, hereby, dismissed.