JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. The accused appellant above named was put on trial for alleged commission of offence under section 302 IPC, in connection with Sessions Case No. 68 of 1999, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj. On conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two months. Prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:- On 8.3.98 at about 12:30 PM, complainant Pulin Ch. Nath, received an information from his cousin that his wife, Sandhya Rani Nath, aged about 35/36 years, was lying dead in a pool of blood at the residence. On receiving the information, the complainant, who was working at nearby Duhalia forest, rushed to his residence and came to know form his children that accused Pratap Ch. Nath i.e. his own brother in relation, had assaulted his wife by a dao, as a result of which, she sustained cut injuries on her person and died. On the basis of the information, a case was registered and investigation was initiated. 2. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The I/O also seized a 'dao' smeared with blood from the 'Veranda' of the house of the accused, in presence of the witnesses. 3. On conclusion of investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet under Section 302 IPC. In the course of trial, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC against the accused, by the learned Sessions Judge. On reading over and explaining the charge aforesaid, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, including the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer of the case, during trial. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence counsel. On completion of the recording of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded in terms of provisions under Section 313 Cr PC, by the learned trial Court. However, the accused took the stand of total denial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. However, the accused took the stand of total denial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Syreen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, for the appellant submitted that the accused/appellant has been convicted without sufficient evidence on record and on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr PC, given by the hostile witnesses before the I/O. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel further submitted that the 'dao' which was seized during investigation was not sent for serological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, to ascertain whether the blood seen in the seized dao in fact contained human blood. In this regard, learned senior counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2008 (3) SCC 210 , Satta Tiya vs. State of Maharastra. 7. In reply to the above contention, Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. PP submits that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased quarreling with her and immediately thereafter, the deceased was found lying dead in a pool of blood. Therefore, it is obligatory, on the part of the accused to explain as to how the deceased had sustained fatal injuries, while she was in his company, moments before her death. 8. In support of the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the respondent, we would like to marshal the prosecution evidence on record. 9. PW. 1, Putin Ch. Nath is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. P W. 1 filed the FIR stating therein that his wife was lying dead in a pool of blood at his residence. According to PW. 1, the killing of his wife was reported to him by his son Rajib. However, from the evidence on record, it appears that Rajib was not examined by the prosecution, as a witness. P W. 1 was also informed by his nephew Nirendra Ch. Nath (PW. 2) that his wife was killed by the accused/appellant. On reaching home, P W. 1 found his wife lying injured on the path in front of his house. PW. P W. 1 was also informed by his nephew Nirendra Ch. Nath (PW. 2) that his wife was killed by the accused/appellant. On reaching home, P W. 1 found his wife lying injured on the path in front of his house. PW. 1 also proved the Ejahar Exht. l submitted by him in the police station. 10. PW. 2, Nirendra Ch. Nath, is a close relation of the accused/appellant, as well as the complainant. According to PW. 2, he had informed PW. 1 regarding the death of the deceased. PW. 2 also deposed that the dead body of the deceased was lying in front of her own house. 11. PW. 3, Rupak Chakraborty, who is a teacher by profession, was going to the residence of one Niranjan Goswami, for treatment of his son, at the relevant time. When he was going by PW. D road, he found the deceased and accused/appellant were picking up quarrel on the road. PW. 2 intervened and asked them not to quarrel and then the accused and deceased left the place for their own houses. PW. 3 further deposed that, he heard the shouting and came back to the place of occurrence and found the deceased was lying in an injured condition. Being asked, the children of PW. 1, told him that accused/appellant had killed the deceased. This witness was subsequently declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the prosecution as well as by the defence. PW. 3, in his cross-examination clarified that after compromising the quarrel, he went to the house of Niranjan Goswami, which was about 4/5 meters from the house of accused. According to PW. 1, the house of the accused and his house are situated in different hillocks and PW. D road passes through the houses of the accused and the deceased. The distance between the house of the accused and the house of the deceased is about 15 to 20 Nal (1 Null =12 Feet.). 12. PW. 4, Niranjan Goswami, a resident of the locality, was coming to the house of Rupak Chakraborty (PW. 3), and on his way he found accused and the deceased picking up quarrel in front of their houses. PW. 4, hearing shouting from the quarrel came back to the place of occurrence and on reaching there, he found the deceased lying with bleeding injury, in front of her house. PW. 3), and on his way he found accused and the deceased picking up quarrel in front of their houses. PW. 4, hearing shouting from the quarrel came back to the place of occurrence and on reaching there, he found the deceased lying with bleeding injury, in front of her house. PW. 4 did not ascertain whether the deceased has senses. On being asked, the children informed PW. 4 that the deceased was killed by the accused/appellant. This witness was also cross examined by the prosecution, after declaring him hostile. PW. 4, in his cross-examination stated that he did not witness the incident except the part he stated in his examination-in-chief. PW. 4 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defence, but nothing could be discerned by the defence counsel in favour of the accused/appellant. 13. PW. 5 Dr. Lipi Deb, who carried out the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on the deceased: Injuries: 1. Severe sharp incised wound about 8" x 3" brain exposed over back of skull horizontally. 2. 5" x 3" head of humorous severed incised wound over right arms 3. 6" x 2" x 4" with underlying bone cut over face on right side 4. Over abdomen right side about 6" x" x 2" incised wound. Cranium and Spinal Canal:- All organs pale except scalp, skull, vertebrae as described in (1) in external injury. Thorax: All organs pale except walls, ribs and cartilages as healthy and heart and vessels empty. Abdomen: Walls as described in external appearance (4) stomach and contents empty, small intestine and its contents- contained mucoid material, large intestine and its contents contained faecal matter and other organs were pale. Bladder was empty and organs of generation normal and pale. All injuries were ante mortem. 14. The Doctor, PW. 5 opined that the death was due to shock and haemorhage caused by ante-mortem injury sustained. Ext. 4 is the post mortem report and Ext. 4(1) is her signature. PW. 5 further deposed that the injuries may be caused by sharp and heavy weapon like dao and those injuries are sufficient to cause death of any person in ordinary course of nature. From the evidence of the Doctor, PW. 5 it appears that the injuries sustained by the deceased were homicidal in nature. PW. 6, is the daughter of the accused/appellant, she was declared hostile by the prosecution 15. PW. 8, Asim Kr. From the evidence of the Doctor, PW. 5 it appears that the injuries sustained by the deceased were homicidal in nature. PW. 6, is the daughter of the accused/appellant, she was declared hostile by the prosecution 15. PW. 8, Asim Kr. Dey, the Investigating Officer of the case seized a 'dao' smeared with blood from the veranda of the accused. The accused did not deny recovery of a blood stained 'dao' in the cross examination of the I/O. 16. The accused/appellant took the plea of total denial and did not come forward to adduce evidence. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW. 3 and PW. 4 it clearly transpires that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused quarreling with her. Immediately, thereafter, the deceased was found lying on the ground with severe injuries on her person. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to her injuries. As the deceased was last seen together in the company of the accused quarrelling with her, a few moments before the occurrence, it was obligatory on the part of the accused, to explain the circumstances in which the deceased had sustained the injuries or as to when the accused left the company of the deceased. However, from the evidence on record, it appears that the accused/appellant except taking the plea of total denial, did not come forward prima facie to explain, as to how the deceased had sustained injuries or as when he had left the company of the deceased. Admittedly the deceased was quarreling with the accused just before sustained fatal injuries on her person. The post-mortem report shows that the victim was severely assaulted by sharp cutting weapon like 'dao' as a result of which she died. The doctor opined that death of that deceased had resulted from multiple on vital organs and it was homicidal in nature. 17. We have no doubt that homicidal death of Sandhya Rani had happened immediately after the altercation with the accused. Now we have to deal with another crucial issue. Having found that Sandhya Rani was in the company of the accused moment before sustain fatal injuries, can the accused escape the penal consequences of such murder. 18. The accused has not given any explanation as to what happened to Sandhya Rani immediately after the altercation with the accused. Now we have to deal with another crucial issue. Having found that Sandhya Rani was in the company of the accused moment before sustain fatal injuries, can the accused escape the penal consequences of such murder. 18. The accused has not given any explanation as to what happened to Sandhya Rani immediately after the altercation with the accused. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine, as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 19. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Sandhya Rani was seen moments before sustaining fatal injuries, in the company of the accused, the accused alone knew what happened to her until he was with her. Sandhya Rani was found brutally injured within a short time after then the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused murdered Sandhya Rani. Such inference can be disrupted if accused would tell the Court, what else happened to Sandhya Rani at least until he was in their custody. 20. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are- the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are- the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; 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; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 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. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram, 2003 (8) SCC 180 , State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh & another, 2003 (11) SCC 261 and Kusuma Ankama Rao vs. State of A.P. Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008. 21. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of two decisions of this court. In State of U.P. vs. Satish, 2005 (3) SCC 114 it was noted as follows: 22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time, when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused, when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 4 & 5. 22. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy vs. State of A.P. 2006(10) SCC 172 , it was noted as follows: 27. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 4 & 5. 22. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy vs. State of A.P. 2006(10) SCC 172 , it was noted as follows: 27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration". (See also Bodh Raj vs. State of J & K 2002 (8) SCC 45 . 23. A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (12) SCC 438 and Kusuma Ankama Rao's case (supra). 24. In Sahadevan @ Sagadeval vs. State, (2003) 1 SCC 534 , the Apex Court has held that that in a case of last-seen-together, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to explain as to when and where he parted the company of the deceased. 25. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the dao seized by the police was not sent for forensic examination to verify whether the blood found in the 'dao' belonged to any human being or not. But the fact remains that the accused did not come forward to deny the recovery of a blood smeared 'dao' from his veranda. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210 , as follows: 26. The next thing which is to be seen is whether the evidence relating to the recovery of clothes of the appellant and the half blade, allegedly used for commission of crime, is credible and could be relied on for proving the charge of culpable homicide against the appellant. In this context, it is important to note that the prosecution did not produce any document containing the recording of statement allegedly made by the appellant expressing his desire to facilitate recovery of the clothes and half blade. The prosecution case that the accused volunteered to give information and took the police for recovery of the clothes, half blade and purchase of handkerchief is highly suspect. The prosecution case that the accused volunteered to give information and took the police for recovery of the clothes, half blade and purchase of handkerchief is highly suspect. It has not been explained as to why the appellant gave information in piecemeal on three dates i.e. 3.10.1994, 5.10.1994 and 6.10.1994. Room No. 45 of "Ganesh Bhuvan" from which the clothes are said to have been recovered was found to be unlocked premises which could be accessed by anyone. The prosecution could not explain as to how the room allegedly belonging to the appellant could be without any lock. The absence of any habitation in the room also casts serious doubt on the genuineness and bona fides of recovery of clothes. The recovery of half blade from the roadside from beneath the wooden board in front of "Ganesh Bhuvan" is also not convincing. Undisputedly, the place from which half blade is said to have been recovered is an open place and everybody had access to the site from where the blade is said to have been recovered. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution theory regarding recovery of the half blade. The credibility of the evidence relating to recovery is substantially dented by the fact that even though as per the chemical examiner's report the bloodstains found on the shirt, pants and half blade were those of human blood, the same could not be linked with the blood of the deceased. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court overlooked this serious lacuna in the prosecution story and concluded that the presence of human bloodstains on the clothes of the accused and half blade were sufficient to link him with the murder. 26. The facts and circumstances discussed in the decision of Sattatiya (supra) is not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cannot be pressed into service in the instant case. 27. The principle "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" does not apply in India (false in one thing, false in everything). It is not uncommon even for truthful witness to make certain exaggerations or embellishments in his statement. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence and separate grain from Chaff Ugar Aher vs. State of Bihar; 1965 (1) Cri LJ 256. It is not uncommon even for truthful witness to make certain exaggerations or embellishments in his statement. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence and separate grain from Chaff Ugar Aher vs. State of Bihar; 1965 (1) Cri LJ 256. There is hardly a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery, embellishment. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the court should uphold the prosecution case, to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy as has been held by the Supreme Court in a case reported in Ranvir vs. State of Punjab: 1973 Cri LJ 1120. 28. The High Court of Allabahad in Kunwar & other in (Jai) vs. State of U.P. 1993 CRL. LJ 3421 held that the reliance also can be put on the statement of the hostile witnesses. It is a settled position of law that the testimony of witnesses, who has been declared hostile, can also be relied on that part of it, which inspire confidence of the Court and corroborates with the testimony of other witnesses. Merely because the witnesses have been declared hostile, it cannot be the ground for rejecting the testimony of such hostile witnesses as unreliable. 29. The Apex Court in Ram Swaroop vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 13 SCC 134 held that:- It is no doubt true that merely because a witness is declared hostile his evidence cannot be discarded. The fact that a witness has resiled from the earlier statement made in the course of investigation puts the court on guard and cautions the court against acceptance of such evidence without satisfactory corroboration. Slight discrepancies in the statement of eye witnesses are not uncommon in the testimony of most truthful witnesses. There are details which, unless the witnesses are tutored, must vary in minor particulars, and in the normal course of things are found generally to be stated differently by different observers. Such differences or variations are indications of truth rather than falsehood of the version given by the prosecution witnesses. See Yaswant vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 SCC (Cri) 684:1972 Cri LJ 1254, State of Assam vs. Krishna Rao. 30. Both the witnesses, PW. 4 and PW. 5 were not related, either to accused or the deceased. Such differences or variations are indications of truth rather than falsehood of the version given by the prosecution witnesses. See Yaswant vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 SCC (Cri) 684:1972 Cri LJ 1254, State of Assam vs. Krishna Rao. 30. Both the witnesses, PW. 4 and PW. 5 were not related, either to accused or the deceased. Both the witnesses corroborated each other to reaffirm that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased quarreling with her, immediately thereafter, the deceased was found with severe bleeding injuries on her person, as a result of she died. 31. From the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that in the quarrel that ensued between the deceased and the accused, the accused had inflicted the fatal injuries, on the person of the deceased as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 32. In view of the above discussion, we do not find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Send back the LCR forthwith. Appeal dismissed.