Judgment :- A.P. LAVANDE, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No.6/2008 whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. By the impugned judgment, the accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. The accused, who was serving as a Chief Mechanic in Navy at Dabolim, has been convicted for having committed murder of Rajlaximi in the afternoon of 04/12/2007, which incidentally was a Navy day. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: FIR dated 05/12/2007 at Vasco Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C., was registered against the appellant/ accused at the instance of Shriniwas Vighnesh, who expired before the commencement of the trial. It was the case of the informant that on 04/12/2007 in the afternoon, the accused had strangulated his mistress Rajlaximi by using a towel, killed her, put the dead body in a wooden box and tried to dispose of the same. The accused was arrested under arrest panchanama and the mobile, which was on his person, was also seized. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused, the dead body of Rajlaximi which was in a box near the premises in which the accused was staying with his family, was discovered. The dead body which was identified to be that of Rajlaximi, was referred for postmortem. The postmortem was carried out by PW14Dr. Silvano Sapeco. Thereafter, statements of several witnesses were recorded. It was further the case of the prosecution that the accused had made extrajudicial confessions to two Naval Officers namely; PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna. In the course of investigation, certain belongings of Rajlaximi from room no.405/B belonging to PW23Shetu Raman, were seized. The accused was also examined by PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes, who found six injuries on his forearms. It was the prosecution case that the accused had admitted to PW15-Dr. Fernandes that he had suffered injuries in the scuffle with the deceased. In the course of investigation, certain belongings of Rajlaximi from room no.405/B belonging to PW23Shetu Raman, were seized. The accused was also examined by PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes, who found six injuries on his forearms. It was the prosecution case that the accused had admitted to PW15-Dr. Fernandes that he had suffered injuries in the scuffle with the deceased. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. 4. In Sessions Case No.6/2008, the charge was framed against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses and produced several documents in support of the charge. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused examined one defence witness Santosh Mirajkar-AW1. Learned Judge held that the following 12 circumstances have been proved against the accused: (i) That the accused had been friendly with Rajlaximi from prior to January, 2006 and was to marry her. (ii) That the accused stayed with Rajlaximi at Hotel Vasco, at Vasco, from 1-12-2007 to 4-12-2007, till around 12.00 noon. (iii) That the accused was last seen with the deceased Rajlaximi before her death. (iv) That the accused had been on leave from 1-12-2007 to 3-12-2007 and he was at his flat with the deceased on 4-12-2007 between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. (v) That the accused had kept his wife and child at the house of his friend, PW1 on 4-12-2007 from noon till 5-12-2007 and he had also stayed there on the night of 4-12-2007. (vi) That the accused had made extra judicial confessions to two Naval Officers, PW3 and PW4 on 5-12-2007 between 5.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., that he committed the murder of Rajlalximi. (vii) That the accused gave information to the police leading to the discovery of the wooden box near his rented premises at Chicalim, where the dead body of Rajlaximi was found. (viii) That the accused had taken the keys of Room No.405/B from PW23 and had kept the belongings of Rajlaximi over there. (ix) That the accused was arrested on 5-12-2007 around 8.30 p.m. and his Nokia phone was found on his body, and from this phone he had been calling up to Rajlaximi. (x) That the accused had six injuries on his forearms. (ix) That the accused was arrested on 5-12-2007 around 8.30 p.m. and his Nokia phone was found on his body, and from this phone he had been calling up to Rajlaximi. (x) That the accused had six injuries on his forearms. (xi) That the accused made an admission to PW15, Dr. Andre that he had sustained the injuries in the scuffle with the deceased Rajlaximi, in his rental house on 4.12.2007 between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. (xii) That from the rented premises in possession of the accused, the blood and urine report of Rajlaximi were attached. The learned Judge, though in the impugned judgment held that the prosecution has proved that the death of Rajlaximi was homicidal, did not mention the same as one of the circumstances. Learned Judge further held that the above referred 12 circumstances are forming the complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the murder of Rajlaximi and convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 5. Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused took us through the relevant evidence led by the prosecution and submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish incriminating circumstances against the accused warranting his conviction for the offence of murder of Rajlaximi. According to learned Senior Counsel, several circumstances which the learned Judge has held to have been proved by the prosecution, have not been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence. According to learned Senior Counsel, several circumstances which have not been put to the accused, have been used by the learned Judge against the accused for arriving at a finding of guilt. According to learned Senior Counsel, the circumstances, which have been proved by the prosecution, do not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused and at the most, raises suspicion against the accused, but the settled principle is that suspicion however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. According to learned Senior Counsel, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the accused committed murder of Rajlaximi in his house, as claimed by the prosecution. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that Rajlaximi stayed with the accused at Hotel Vasco from 01/12/2007 to 04/12/2007 or that the accused was last seen with the deceased before her death. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that Rajlaximi stayed with the accused at Hotel Vasco from 01/12/2007 to 04/12/2007 or that the accused was last seen with the deceased before her death. Learned Counsel further submitted that the so called extra judicial confessions made by the accused to Naval Officers – PW3 -Angsuman Ozha and PW4Krishna Ramavatar cannot be said to be voluntary and considering the position of these officers, the alleged confessions do not inspire the confidence. Learned Counsel further submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge on the discovery of the wooden box near the rented premises of the accused at Chicalim, where the dead body of Rajlaximi was found, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the police already knew in advance about the presence of the dead body of Rajlaximi and as such, the reliance placed by the learned Judge on the discovery of wooden box at the instance of the accused is unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Judge erred in holding that the accused had kept the belongings of Rajlaximi in room No.405/B of PW23-Shetu Raman after taking keys from him. Learned Counsel further submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Judge on six injuries on the forearms of the accused and about the so called admission made to PW15-Dr. Andre V. Fernandes that he had sustained injuries in the scuffle with deceased Rajlaximi in the rental house on 04/12/2007 between 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m., is patently unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Judge, after having acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C., could not have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. According to learned Counsel, the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime has not been established by the prosecution and having regard to the settled law that the motive assumes importance in the case based on circumstantial evidence, the conviction of the accused for the offence of murder is unsustainable in law. According to learned Counsel, it is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of the accused, they had gone to spot where the material burnt by the accused was to be discovered and the prosecution evidence itself suggests that no such burnt material was either found or discovered at the instance of the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that it was the accused who has called the deceased from Chennai. According to learned Counsel, it was Vighnesh, who had lodged report and falsely implicated the accused in the commission of ghastly crime. According to learned Counsel Mr. Vighnesh himself could be the author of the crime. Learned Counsel further submitted that there are number of missing links in the prosecution case and the prosecution case is full of improbabilities and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the alternative, Mr. Dessai submitted that even if the prosecution story is accepted in toto, at the most, an offence under Section 304(I) of I.P.C. is made out against the accused since the prosecution evidence does not establish that the accused had intention to cause murder of the deceased. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dessai placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab; AIR 1957 SC 637 . (ii) Mousam Singha Roy and others Vs. State of W.B.; (2003)12 SCC 377 . (iii) Satish s/o Shrawan Hirudkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharshtra; (2009) All M R (Cri.) 1986. (iv) Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor, Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Yashpal and another; (2009)4 SCC 769 . (v) Babu Vs. State of Kerala; (2010) All M R (Cri.) 3342 SC. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in placing reliance upon 12 circumstances mentioned and in holding that 12 circumstances mentioned in paragraph 186 of the judgment have been established beyond reasonable doubt and the same conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of Rajlaximi was homicidal, therefore, the conviction of the accused for the offence of murder, cannot be said to be unsustainable in law. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of Rajlaximi was homicidal, therefore, the conviction of the accused for the offence of murder, cannot be said to be unsustainable in law. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is corroboratory to prosecution case and in the present case, it cannot be said that the incriminating circumstances have been used by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused without putting the same to him. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident coupled with the other circumstances, clearly proves the complicity of the accused in the commission of crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the confessions made to PW3 -Angsuman Ozha and PW4-Krishna Ramavatar and in the absence of any challenge to these confessions on the ground that either they were not voluntary or they were made under compulsion, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in placing reliance upon the said confessions against the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the answers given by the accused to several questions put to him in the course of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that having regard to these answers, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the circumstantial evidence clearly points out to the guilt of the accused, cannot be faulted. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that upon taking cumulative effect of circumstances proved by the prosecution, the only inference that can be drawn is that it was the accused, who had committed the murder of Rajlaximi on 04/12/2007. Mr. Ferreira further submitted that the murder of Rajlaximi was preplanned, as disclosed from the prosecution evidence and, therefore, the alternative submission made by Mr. Dessai that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, at the most, the offence under Section 304(I) of I.P.C. is made out against the accused, cannot be accepted. Mr. Ferreira lastly submitted that the circumstances, which have been established against the accused, prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused and accused only who had committed the murder of Rajlaximi and, therefore, the conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. does not deserve any interference. Mr. Ferreira lastly submitted that the circumstances, which have been established against the accused, prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused and accused only who had committed the murder of Rajlaximi and, therefore, the conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. does not deserve any interference. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was scuffle between the accused and deceased so as to prove the case under Section 304(I) of I.P.C, as submitted by Mr. Dessai in alternative. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ferreira relied upon the following judgments: (i) Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana; (2010)12SCC 350. (ii) Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo Vs. State of Kerala; (2000)5 SCC 197 . (iii) Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra; (iv) Dnyaneshwar @ Deepak Vithal Khulpe vs. State of Maharashtra; (v) Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs.State of Maharashtra; (1980)4 SCC 600 . (vi) Vinayak Shivajirao Pol Vs. State of Maharashtra; (1998)2 SCC 233 . (vii) Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand; (2010)10 SCC 439 . (viii) Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar; (2002)6SCC 31. (ix) Illias Vs. Collector of Customs; (1969)2 SCR 613 . (x) Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration); (1979)3 SCC 90 . (xi) Such Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2003)7 SCC 643 . (xii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh; (2000)1 SCC 471 . (xiii) Meharban & Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (1996)10 SCC 615 (xiv) State of Gujarat Vs. Anirudhsingh & Anr; (1997)6 SCC 514 . (xv) Nathuni Yadav & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.; (1948)9 SCC 238. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the point which arises for determination in appeal is whether the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused, who had committed murder of Rajlaximi on 04/12/2007 in the afternoon in the rented flat at Adarshnagar, Chicalim? 9. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the point which arises for determination in appeal is whether the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused, who had committed murder of Rajlaximi on 04/12/2007 in the afternoon in the rented flat at Adarshnagar, Chicalim? 9. As stated above, besides the fact that the death of Rajlaximi was homicidal, the prosecution has relied upon the 12 circumstances to prove the charge of murder against the accused. We shall deal with each of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. 10. In order to prove that the death of Rajlaximi was homicidal, the prosecution examined PW14-Dr. Silvano Dias Sapeco, who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Rajlaximi on 06/12/2007. PW14 deposed that the dead body was of female aged about 28 years. The body was identified by Police Inspector Sammy Tavares. The Body had good built and was of height 5 feet and 5 inches. The dead body was cold and the rigor mortis had passed off. The body emitted foul odour and attracted blue flies. Decomposition fluid matter was coming out from mouth and nostrils, both ears, vaginal opening and inner opening. No injuries were present over perineum. There was compressional pressure, abrasion marks seen around the neck in an area of 36 x 6 cms at the level of thyroid cartilage with palor for base along mark and ecchymosis on upper and lower margins of this injury and on cut section, there was one and half to two and half cms deep effusion of blood present. This injury was caused by blunt force or object or surface impact and was soft yielding ligature material which was ante-mortem and fresh at the time of death and was necessarily fatal. He deposed that no other surface injury was seen over the dead body. No fracture for skull, vault and base bones was present. The spinal cord was pulpy. There were no appreciable injuries over the lips, mouth, nose and tongue on the dead body. Ligature mark was present and its description was on pages 3 and 4 of the autopsy report. There was effusion of blood underneath external injury no.1 within one and half to two and half cms deep; effusion of blood effect over the autolysing neck tissue and muscles. Ligature mark was present and its description was on pages 3 and 4 of the autopsy report. There was effusion of blood underneath external injury no.1 within one and half to two and half cms deep; effusion of blood effect over the autolysing neck tissue and muscles. No appreciable fracture was present on hyoid bone, thyroid and cricoid cartilage and trachea rings. Oedematous effects were seen at interior of larynx and trachea. No fractures were present at ribs and breast bones. No effusion of blood was seen in the chest bone of the decomposing cadaver. Pleurae showed autolytic effect. Decompositional fluid matter was present in the lumen of trachea and bronchi. Both lungs were soften with a apical resolving emphysematous bullae. Chambers of the heart were empty. The stomach contained 40 gms of food matter and hence death was within six hours from the last meal. He further opined that the approximate time of death was within 1 to 3 days of preservation of the dead body at morgue. The death was due to compression of neck by ligature strangulation vide surface injury no.1 which was ante-mortem and fresh at the time of death and was necessarily fatal. He further stated that he had prepared memorandum of autopsyexhibit 92. He identified signature on the autopsy report -exhibit 92 and confirmed its contents as correct. He further deposed that injury which was in the nature of compressional pressure abrasional mark around the neck was possible by ligature material like towel. In cross-examination, he deposed that compressional pressure abrasional mark around the neck could be visible. The death could be between 3.30 a.m. of 03/12/2007 to 3.30 a.m. of 05/12/2007. He further deposed that soft material used as ligature material can be any other material other than towel. He further deposed that decomposed fluid blood lying outside the body would also emit foul smell. He further deposed that marks of manual strangulation caused by nails, bruises caused by pressure of fingers are different from ligature strangulation. He admitted that abrasions caused by nails and bruises caused by pressure of fingers were not seen on the dead body at the time of examination. One of the causes of decomposition of fluid was coming of fluid out of the body due to the pressure gases saturated in the body. He further deposed that he did not notice fluid over the face of the body. One of the causes of decomposition of fluid was coming of fluid out of the body due to the pressure gases saturated in the body. He further deposed that he did not notice fluid over the face of the body. He further deposed that breaking of red and white cells of bloods gives rise to autolysis of blood. In the present case, blood was already haemolysed. It was possible to find out origin either of human or animal blood even in the haemolysed blood. In the present case, blood group of haemolysed blood from the dead body was not possible to be detected at G.M.C. blood bank. Decomposition of the blood starts after 24 hours from time of death and such decomposition includes process of haemolysis of blood. He denied the suggestion that original of decomposed blood could be detected. He further stated that he did not find any traces of blood on the dead body because there was no external injury. The above evidence of PW14 -Dr. Silvano Sapeco which has been corroborated by postmortem report exhibit-92 clearly establishes that the death of Rajlaximi was due to compression of neck by ligature strangulation. Hence, the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of Rajlaximi was homicidal. 11. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused had been friendly with Rajlaximi prior to January, 2006 and was to marry her. 12. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution examined PW24-S. Lata. The deceased was sister of the husband of the witness. She deposed that the deceased Rajlaximi was residing with her and her family members including her husband and two children at Tuitani which is in the State of Tamilnadu. Before Rajlaximi came to Goa, she was staying in hostel as stated by her. She told that she had married Jaykumar (the accused). They did not accept her marriage and, therefore, Rajlaximi left the house. She identified the accused present in the Court as Jaykumar and stated that he had come to their house on three occasions along with Rajlaximi. She further deposed that when Rajlaximi had brought the accused to her for the first time, she introduced him as a friend and told that she was willing to marry the accused. The accused did not say anything at that time. She further deposed that when Rajlaximi had brought the accused to her for the first time, she introduced him as a friend and told that she was willing to marry the accused. The accused did not say anything at that time. On enquiry, her in laws, who were also staying with her, came to know that the accused was already married and, therefore, they did not give consent for the marriage of Rajlaximi with the accused. After Rajlaximi left their house, she requested her father-in-law to send books and clothes and the witness gave books and clothes to her at railway station. At that time, Rajlaximi said to her that she had stomach and chest pain and she was not feeling well and thereafter she did not meet her. On 06/12/2007, Vasco Police Station informed her father-in-law on phone that Rajlaximi was killed. She herself, father-in-law and brother reached Goa on 07/12/2007 in the afternoon and went to GMC Hospital where she identified the dead body of Rajlaximi. The witness was shown photograph of the deceased Rajlaximi with the accused. She was also shown another photograph of Rajlaximi, her PAN card and her identity card. She identified the photographs exhibit 44 and 45 as that of the dead body of Rajlaximi. In cross-examination, she deposed that Rajlaximi left house in June 2006 and she had never gone to hostel where she was staying. She had met Rajlaximi at the railway station after about 3 to 4 months from June,2006. Again she met Rajlaximi at railway station after about 5 to 6 months from June, 2006 in connection with her health and that was the last meeting between them. Witness stated that she did not know whether after leaving their house Rajlaximi made mention regarding relations with the accused. She admitted that the photograph of Rajlaximi and of the accused which was shown to her in the Court was never seen by her earlier. She stated that the accused had come with Rajlaximi to their house during the lifetime of her mother-in-law, who had died in January, 2006. She further stated that Rajlaximi did not marry before the death of her mother-in-law or that she never told her that she married the accused. She stated that the accused had come with Rajlaximi to their house during the lifetime of her mother-in-law, who had died in January, 2006. She further stated that Rajlaximi did not marry before the death of her mother-in-law or that she never told her that she married the accused. The evidence of the above witness, which has not been shaken in crossexamination clearly proves that the accused was friendly with Rajlaximi prior to January, 2006 and that Rajlaximi wanted to marry the accused which was opposed by her parents. Her evidence also establishes that the accused had gone with Rajlaximi to the house of her parents on three occasions. Her evidence further establishes that Rajlaximi had told her that she had married Jaykumar – the accused. This part of the evidence has not been even denied. This fact as well as the fact that the accused had come with Rajlaximi to the house of her parents, has not been denied in cross-examination and there is absolutely no reason for us to disbelieve the version of the witness. Moreover, in answer to question no.160, the accused has clearly admitted that the deceased was sister of her husband though in answer to question nos.161 to 162 the accused denied that he had gone with Rajlaximi to her house or that Rajlaximi and told her that she had married the accused. In the absence of any challenge to the version of PW24-S. Lata, the answers given by the accused denying the facts as deposed by the witness, do not have any weight. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish this circumstance. 13. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused stayed with Rajlaximi at Hotel Vasco from 01/12/2007 to 04/12/2007 till afternoon of 04/12/2007. To prove this fact, the prosecution examined PW13-Rajan Gopal Nair, Assistant Manager of the Hotel, PW10-Chandrahas Pandhare, pancha to the attachment of hotel register and specimen signature of the accused, PW28 -Bani Singh, Manager of Hotel, PW21 -C. Rajesh, the Assistant Government Examiner of questioned documents and PW16 -Rochell Fernandes, the Executive Magistrate, who had conducted the test identification parade. 14. PW13-Rajan Nair identified the accused. He deposed that he was working in Hotel Vasco which was managed by one PW28-Bani Singh and in his absence he was working as manager. 14. PW13-Rajan Nair identified the accused. He deposed that he was working in Hotel Vasco which was managed by one PW28-Bani Singh and in his absence he was working as manager. He further deposed that the accused had come along with girl at the hotel on 01/12/2007 at noon and they took room in hotel bearing No.205. The accused entered his name as A. K. Jaykumar in the register of hotel and put his signature against the entry of his name. He further deposed that the accused and girl lived in the room for 3 days and left the room on 04/12/2007 at 12 O clock in the afternoon after paying charges of Rs.285/-. The witness further stated that on 15/12/2007, he was called in the office of Executive Magistrate and he identified the accused in parade and at that time no police officer was there. In the cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion put to him that the accused had not gone to hotel on 01/12/2007 with girl. In cross examination he stated that there were 20 rooms in the hotel. He admitted that there was neither signature nor handwriting on back page no.11 and on page no.12 of the register. He did not remember the date of putting signature by manager on page 12. He admitted that the signature appearing in column 10 is slightly different to that which is in column 17 against entry showing the name of the accused in the register. The witness was shown entry no.115 from the said register and the witness stated that the entry shows that room no.205 was given to another person from 02/12/2007 to 03/12/2007. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not come to the hotel on 01/12/2007 and that he did not stay in the hotel till 04/12/2007. He stated that he had not seen the photograph of the accused published in newspaper after the incident in question. The witness denied that the accused was shown to him before the parade. 15. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not come to the hotel on 01/12/2007 and that he did not stay in the hotel till 04/12/2007. He stated that he had not seen the photograph of the accused published in newspaper after the incident in question. The witness denied that the accused was shown to him before the parade. 15. The stand of the accused that he had not gone to the hotel along with a girl on 01/12/2007 or that he had taken room no.205 in the hotel, has to be tested in the light of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In answer to question no.78 of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he had come along with a girl to the said hotel on 01/12/2007 at noon, the accused stated that it was false, but on that day he had gone to hotel to book a room for his friends, who were to come from Chennai. In answer to question no.79 that he had entered his name as A. K. Jaykumar, he stated that the entry was not made in the presence of the witness. But in answer to question No.80, he admitted that he had put his signature against entry. In answer to question nos. 81 to 84, the accused denied that he along with a girl lived in the room No.205/B for three days or that he had paid charges of Rs.285/-or that when he left the hotel, he had dark blue colour pant and light blue colour shirt on his person. Further he added that he lived there with his family. 16. Having regard to the statement made by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he lived in room No.205 for three days, but with family, it is evident that the accused does not seriously dispute that he had stayed in the room No.205 for three days, but it is his case that he lived in the said room with his family. The accused admittedly has not led any evidence to establish that he had stayed in the said room along with his family. The accused admittedly has not led any evidence to establish that he had stayed in the said room along with his family. Therefore, having regard to this evidence, we have no hesitation to accept the version of P.W.13-Rajan Nair that it was the accused, who had gone along with a girl to the hotel and booked room No.205 and that the said room was in his occupation for a period of three days till 04/12/2007 in the afternoon. 17. The evidence of PW10-Chandrahas Pandhare, who was a panch to attachment of the hotel register and specimen signature of the accused also corroborates the version of PW13-Rajan Nair. The evidence of Chandrahas Pandhare, who has corroborated by attachment panchanama exhibit 62/C clearly establishes that in his presence hotel register was attached under panchanama on 07/12/2007. His evidence further establishes that on the same day in his presence, specimen signatures of the accused were taken on six paper sheets marked as S1 to S6-exhibits 64 to 69, which the witness has identified in the course of evidence. The evidence of this witness insofar as the obtaining of specimen signatures of the accused is concerned is corroborated by panchanama exhibit 62/C. 18. The evidence of PW21-C. Rajesh, the Government Examiner of questioned documents confirms that the person who wrote exhibit nos.64 to 69 also wrote Q1 and Q2 on page 12 of the register. His evidence is corroborated by the report exhibit 135 in which reasons in support of the opinion have been stated. He has also identified his signature on the report exhibit 135. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not say whether signature appearing in column no.17 against entry no.111 is different from that in column no.10 against the said entry at page no.12 of the register. He stated that only he was directed to examine these two witnesses and could express opinion and he could not say as to whether figure 8 out of 285 is written in place of figure 9 in column no.11 against entry no.111. 19. He stated that only he was directed to examine these two witnesses and could express opinion and he could not say as to whether figure 8 out of 285 is written in place of figure 9 in column no.11 against entry no.111. 19. In our view, mere fact that the witness could not say whether the signature appearing in column no.17 against entry no.111 was different from that in column no.10 against entry on page no.12, would by itself be not sufficient to hold that the accused had not gone to the hotel on 01/12/2007 along with deceased which fact is duly established by the evidence of PW13-Rajan Nair. It is also pertinent to note that evidence of PW13 regarding identification of the accused in the parade has been corroborated by PW16-Rochell Fernandes, who had conducted test identification parade on 15/12/2007. 20. The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW28-Bani Singh, the manager of the hotel, who at the relevant time was working as manager in hotel Vasco. He identified his signature in column no.15 against entry at serial no.111 on page 12 of the register. He stated that figure 285 in column 11 and date written in column no.7 were in his handwriting. He further deposed that the accused initially had booked room only for one day and on the second day, he wanted to stay in the hotel for 2 days more and, therefore, there was change in date in column no.7 and also in the figure at column No.11 of the register. He further stated that the accused was given room no.205. He further deposed that entry no.115 on page No.12 in register also shows room no.205 was given to another person. He stated that there was phone call from concerned person to reserve a room in his name in the hotel on 01/12/2007. Since the accused had booked room no.205 for one day, this room was reserved for the said person from 02/12/2007. Since second day, the accused told him that he is going to stay in the room two more days, another room no.305 was allotted to the said person. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not in the hotel when the accused checked in and checked out. He admitted that the initially there was date 02/12/2007 in column no.7 which was converted to 04/12/2007. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not in the hotel when the accused checked in and checked out. He admitted that the initially there was date 02/12/2007 in column no.7 which was converted to 04/12/2007. Initially there was figure 95 in column no.17 which was converted to 285. He stated that figure 95 was written by their employee by name Rajan. He further stated that he did not know the name of the customer, who requested on phone to book the room in his name. He further deposed that the accused had informed on phone that he was staying in hotel for two more days and call was received by him. He denied the suggestion that the changes which are made in dates and figures in column nos.7 and 11 respectively were made by the police or that he had deposed as per the instructions given by the police. The evidence of PW28-Bani Singh does not advance the case of the accused in the light of his admission in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he had gone to hotel Vasco and had stayed in room no.205 along with his family. 21. Thus, upon close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witnesses we hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused had gone along with Rajlaximi at hotel Vasco and had booked room no.205 from 01/12/2007 to 04/12/2007 and that on 04/12/2007, the accused and the deceased vacated the room in the afternoon. No doubt, the evidence of above four witnesses does not conclusively prove that the accused had also stayed along with Rajlaximi on all three days but the above referred evidence clearly proves that it was the accused, who had booked room no.205 and that the said room was occupied by the deceased Rajlaximi from 01/12/2007 to 04/12/2007. 22. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused was last seen with the victim girl soon before her death on the afternoon of 04/12/2007. 22. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused was last seen with the victim girl soon before her death on the afternoon of 04/12/2007. The deposition of P.W.13-Rajan Nair to which we have already made reference hereinabove, clearly establishes that the accused and the said girl had left the room on 04/12/2007 at about 12.00 o clock in the afternoon and at that time, the accused was wearing dark blue colour pant and light blue colour shirt and the girl was wearing cream colour top and pant of multi-colours having stripes. From deposition of P.W.17-Smt. Tara Kerkar, who was pancha to the inquest panchanama, what emerges is that the deceased was having on her body churidar of cream colour and pant of multicolours and a dupatta of cream colour. Her evidence further establishes that at the time of scene of offence panchanama, a blue colour pant and long sleeves shirt were attached from the accused. The same has been identified as M.O.7 and 8. Similarly, churidar's top and churidar's pant and dupatta i.e. M.O.14, 15 and 16 have been identified by the witness. 23. Thus, the evidence of the above witnesses clearly proves that it was the accused who was in the company of the victim at about 12.00 o clock noon of 04/12/2007. 24. The evidence of Dr. Silvano Sapeco, who conducted the postmortem examination, establishes that death of victim could be between 3.30 a.m. of 03/12/2007 to 3.30 a.m. of 05/12/2007. Therefore, the evidence of above witness clearly establishes that the accused was last seen with the deceased before her death. 25. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused had been on leave on 01/12/2007 to 03/12/2007 and that he was at his flat with the deceased on 04/12/2007 between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. PW29-Sammy Tavares, Dy. S.P. deposed that the accused was on holidays on 1, 2 and 3 December, 2007. When this evidence was put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused did not deny that he was on holidays on these 3 days, but stated that he was present in the office for preparation of Navy Day, which was falling on 04/12/2007. When this evidence was put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused did not deny that he was on holidays on these 3 days, but stated that he was present in the office for preparation of Navy Day, which was falling on 04/12/2007. No doubt, the evidence of PW29-Sammy Tavares also establishes that on 04/12/2007 the accused was on duty from 8.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. as per his attendance register. PW29-Sammy Tavares further stated that he did not know whether the Naval Officer could not leave premises during office hours and he did not make any enquiry to find out as to whether the accused was working during the office hours on 04/12/2007 and 05/12/2007. The evidence of PW1-Badrish Somnathan establishes that he had met the accused at about 2 p.m. on 04/12/2007 and at that time, the accused was wearing his normal uniform. After close scrutiny of the above evidence in the light of the other prosecution evidence and more particularly having regard to the statement made by the accused before PW15-Dr.Andre Fernandes that between 1.00 and 1.30 p.m. he was at his rented premises along with the deceased, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has been able to establish that from 01/12/2007 to 03/12/2007 the accused was on leave and that the accused was with the deceased in his rented premises between 1.00 and 1.30 p.m. on 04/12/2007. 26. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the conduct of the accused in keeping wife and child away from the rented premises. The evidence of PW7-Dr. Vinay Surlekar, the owner of the premises at Adarshnagar, Chicalim, establishes that the accused was staying along with his wife and child as a tenant in the said premises since 05/07/2007. Moreover, this fact has been admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the evidence of PW7 clearly establishes that from 05/07/2007 till 04/12/2007 the accused was in possession of the said rented premises at Chicalim. 27. PW1-Badrish Somnathan, who was working in the Naval Aircraft Yard at Goa since April 2007 deposed that he knew the accused, who was posted as Chief Mechanic at the yard since May, 2007. 27. PW1-Badrish Somnathan, who was working in the Naval Aircraft Yard at Goa since April 2007 deposed that he knew the accused, who was posted as Chief Mechanic at the yard since May, 2007. His evidence clearly establishes that on 04/12/2007 at about 1.00 p.m. he had gone to his residence, he saw the wife and child of the accused at his residence and after lunch, he had gone to his office, where the accused told him that some guests were at his residence and it was not possible to accommodate all of them in his flat and as such, he had sent his wife and child to the residence of PW1. His evidence also discloses that on 04/12/2007, the accused had come to his residence at about 9.45 to 10.00 p.m. and stayed there that night. It is pertinent to note that the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he had told PW1Badrish Somnathan that some male friends were coming from Chennai and, therefore, he had sent wife and child to the residence of PW1 and that he had spent night at the residence of PW1 on 04/12/2007 along with his family. The evidence of PW1 further establishes that on 05/12/2007 he had left for duty at about 6.45 a.m. and the accused had left for his residence saying that he was going to change his clothes; thereafter, the accused came to office at 8.00 a.m. and later on when he went at his residence at 9.30 a.m. for breakfast, the wife and the child of the accused were at his residence. Thereafter, at about 1.00 p.m. he and along with the accused had gone to his residence for lunch. The evidence of PW1 further establishes that the accused had never stayed at his residence prior to 04/12/2007. Thus, the evidence of PW1 which has not been shaken in crossexamination on material aspects, clearly establishes that although the accused was staying along with his family in rented premises at Chicalim, on 04/12/2007, in the afternoon, he had sent his wife and child to the residence of PW1 and that on the same night, the accused and his family members stayed at the residence of PW1 and again on 05/12/2007, he went to the house of PW1 for lunch. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused had made efforts to keep his wife and child away from the rented premises on 04/12/2007 and 05/12/2007 and he had himself not stayed in the rented premises on the night of 04/12/2007. Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused had kept his wife and child at the house of PW1-Badrish Somnathan on 04/12/2007 from noon till 05/12/2007 and he had also stayed in the night of 04/12/2007 there. 28. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused had made extrajudicial confessions to Naval Officers. PW2-Amit Kulkarni, who was also working as Electrical Mechanic A.I.R. Radio at Navy, Dabolim, deposed that on 04/12/2007 at about 6.00 p.m. he had received a phone call from A. K. Jaykumar requesting him to speak with Vighnesh, who was working as Electrical Mechanic in Navy. After 15 to 20 minutes of his reaching at his residence, he again received another call from A. K. Jaykumar to speak to Vighnesh and PW2-Amit Kulkarni handed over his mobile to Vighnesh. Thus, the evidence of PW2 only establishes that the accused was trying to contact Vighnesh, who had filed report to the police on the next day. There is no dispute that the said witness had expired and as such, could not be examined during the trial. 29. PW3-Angsuman Ozha, who was posted as Regulating Officer in Indian Naval Ship at Hansa, Dabolim deposed that on 05/12/2007, at about 6 p.m. he received a phone call from PW4-Krishna Ramavatar, who was working as Master Chief at Arms in the Navy. Krishna told him that a murder of a lady has been committed by one of the sailors, by name A. K. Jaykumar and asked for his assistance. He deposed that in his presence Krishna asked the accused about the incident and the accused narrated that he committed the murder of a lady in his residence by strangulation and put the dead body in the box. He identified the accused as A. K. Jaykumar. He deposed that in his presence Krishna asked the accused about the incident and the accused narrated that he committed the murder of a lady in his residence by strangulation and put the dead body in the box. He identified the accused as A. K. Jaykumar. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had told the Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station that the accused had confessed in his presence and before Shri Krishna that he had committed murder of a lady and he had kept the dead body in the box at his residence and that he had told this to the police when they handed over the accused to the custody of the police. It was not suggested to this witness that he had given any threats to the accused which compelled the accused to make the alleged confession. On the contrary, in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that on 05/12/2007 at about 6 p.m. he had stated about the incident to PW3-Angsuman Ozha and Shri Krishna that he had committed the murder. However, the accused stated that it was PW3 and Shri Krishna, who had told him to say so otherwise he would not be saved. In our considered opinion, the evidence of PW3 also stands corroborated by PW4-Shri Krishna Ramavtar, who was Assistant Security Officer in the Navy Aircraft Yard. He deposed that on 05/12/2007 Shri Vighnesh told Commander N. Shah (PW5) about the involvement of the accused in murder of Rajlaximi. The Commander Shah called him in his office and told him that the accused had committed murder of a lady and directed him to take appropriate action according to law and thereafter, he contacted the accused on mobile at about 5.30 p.m. and the accused came to his office within 10 minutes and was taken in his custody. He further deposed that when asked, the accused stated that he had committed murder of a lady and kept the dead body at his house in wooden box. He contacted Senior Officer, PW3-Angsuman Ozha at about 6 p.m. who came in his office and with his help he contacted Vasco Police Station. He further deposed that he asked the accused the details regarding the murder. He contacted Senior Officer, PW3-Angsuman Ozha at about 6 p.m. who came in his office and with his help he contacted Vasco Police Station. He further deposed that he asked the accused the details regarding the murder. In the presence of PW3-Ojha the accused confessed that he committed murder of a lady by name S. Rajlaximi in a private house at Chicalim which was taken by him on rent. Thereafter he took the accused with the help of PW4-Krishna to Vasco Police Station and handed him over to the custody of Vasco Police. In cross-examination, he stated that he had taken the accused in his custody in the sense that he had detained him. This evidence was put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused replied that PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna compelled him to tell this. He further stated that he had not made confession and PW4-Krishna had told him to say yes otherwise he would not be saved. He further stated that he was not in good terms with PW4-Krishna who was all the time harassing him. It is pertinent to note that in cross-examination of the accused it has not been suggested by the accused that both these witnesses or either of them had compelled him to make confession. The above evidence of PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna clearly establishes that the accused had confessed to them on 05/12/2007 at about 6 p.m. that he had committed murder of Rajlaximi. Therefore, the statement made by the accused that he was compelled to make alleged confession, appears to be an afterthought. Moreover, there was no cogent reasons for these witnesses, who were also serving in the Navy, to falsely implicate the accused and that too in a ghastly crime. Moreover, the confession made to these two witnesses stands corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence namely that the dead body of Rajlaximi was found in the box near the rented premises of the accused. 30. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the confession made to both these witnesses i.e. PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 30. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the confession made to both these witnesses i.e. PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Balkishan Devidayal (supra) relied upon by learned Public Prosecutor, the Apex Court has held that primary test to determine is whether the officer is invested with all the powers exercisable by the officer in charge of Police Station under Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. qua Investigation of offences under that Act including power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court further held that it is not enough to show that he exercises some or even many of the powers of police officers conducting investigation under the Code. The ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable in the present case. PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna by no stretch of imagination can be termed as police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of The Evidence Act. It is also difficult to accept the case set up by the accused that the confessions made by him were at the instance of these two witnesses and the accused, finding himself in helpless position, must have disclosed his complicity in the crime to these two witnesses. There is nothing unnatural about the confessions made by the accused to PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna and there is absolutely no reason for PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna to falsely implicate the accused. The confessions made by the accused to these witnesses are voluntary and as such, have to be accepted. Having regard to the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Balkishan Devidayal (supra), PW3-Ojha and PW4-Krishna cannot be termed as police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of The Evidence Act. 31. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is regarding the discovery of the body of the deceased at the instance of the accused. PW27-P.I. Uttam Raut Dessai deposed that he had registered FIR at exhibit 156 on 05/12/2007 as per the report of late Shriniwas Vighnesh. He immediately arrested the accused after registering the offence in the presence of two panchas Govind Manrekar and Maruti Naik. PW27-P.I. Uttam Raut Dessai deposed that he had registered FIR at exhibit 156 on 05/12/2007 as per the report of late Shriniwas Vighnesh. He immediately arrested the accused after registering the offence in the presence of two panchas Govind Manrekar and Maruti Naik. He identified exhibit 116 arrest panchanama which was carried out between 8.35 p.m. to 9 p.m. He further deposed that the accused gave information that the dead body of his mistress is kept in the wooden box at his house and he was ready and willing to show the place. The evidence of PW11-AJaykumar Singh, who was panch witness for recovery panchanama is on similar lines. The evidence of PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai and PW11AJaykumar Singh establishes that they had gone to the tenanted premises of the accused at Adarshnagar as per the instructions of the accused and they found a box of 3 feet into 2 feet size near the room which was opened by the accused and a dead body was found in the said box which was removed by the police. Their evidence also establishes that the photographs were taken and the police sealed the lock and keys of the box and prepared panchanama which ended about 12.00 o clock midnight. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that PW3-Ojha in his cross-examination had admitted that he had told the Police Inspector of Vasco Police Station that the accused had confessed in presence of PW4-Shri Krishna that he had committed the murder of a lady at his residence and that he had kept the dead body in the box at his residence. In view of this statement, it is difficult to accept the prosecution's case that the dead body was discovered at the instance of the accused since it is well settled that if the police already knows a fact prior to the accused making any statement, the recovery of any incriminating article or dead body cannot be said to be discovered at the instance of the accused. However, the evidence of PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai and PW11-AJaykumar Singh which has not been shaken on material aspects in the cross-examination, establishes that they had gone along with the accused to his rented premises and in a box, dead body of a lady was found. The box was having dark green colour of 3 feet length and 2.2 feet in width and height of 2.5 feet. The box was having dark green colour of 3 feet length and 2.2 feet in width and height of 2.5 feet. The prosecution has led cogent evidence to prove that it was the accused, who opened the lock of the box with keys and after opening the box, a dead body of a woman was found in the box. The evidence of these two witnesses stands corroborated by seizure panchanama at exhibit 83. Moreover, the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in answer to question No.186 admitted that there was dead body of a woman in the wooden box. In our considered view, in view of the fact that the Police Inspector was already informed by PW4-Krishna about the confession made by the accused that he had murdered a lady and kept her dead body in the box, the seizure of the box and the dead body cannot be termed as the discovery at the instance of the accused. However, the evidence of the above two witnesses clearly lends assurance to the evidence of PW4Krishna, who had disclosed to PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai about the confession made by the accused. 32. The evidence of PW27-Uttam Dessai and PW11-AJaykumar Singh establishes that soon after the arrest of the accused, the dead body of Rajlaximi was found in a box near the rented premises of the accused at Chicalim and seizure of the wooden box and dead body was made in the presence of PW11-AJaykumar Singh by PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai. It is pertinent to note that although PW27-P.I. Dessai was informed by PW4Krishna about the confession made to him by the accused about the murder and the presence of dead body in a box, there is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the police had been to the spot earlier. Moreover, the seizure of the box and the dead body was made soon after the arrest of the accused and as such, though the seizure of the box and the dead body cannot be termed in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act the evidence clearly proves that the wooden box with the dead body was found soon after the arrest of the accused after the accused was taken to the spot by PW27-P.I.Uttam Dessai along with the panchas including PW11-AJaykumar Singh. In the case of Arun Versus State of Maharashtra; 2001 All M R (Cri) 2320, the Division Bench of this Court held that the police were already knowing the spot where the dead body lay buried and as such, the information of the accused in that regard was not admissible in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai was already informed by PW4-Krishna that the accused had admitted that he had committed murder of Rajlaximi and had kept the dead body in wooden box and as such this fact was known to PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai and, therefore, it cannot be said that PW27 came to know about the presence of wooden box with the dead body near the rented premises of the accused, for the first time, at the instance of the accused. Thus, though the prosecution has not been able to establish the discovery of the dead body and the wooden box with the dead body at the instance of the accused in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish the recovery of wooden box with the dead body soon after the arrest of the accused. 33. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused had taken the keys of room No.405/B from PW23 and had kept the belongings of Rajlaximi in the said room. PW23-Shetu Kalyan Raman, who was also working in the Naval Aircraft Yard at Dabolim, deposed that the residential quarter bearing No.405/B situated at Varunapuri was allotted to him by the department, but he had not occupied the same. He knew the accused. The accused was his good friend and they were working in the same department when they were earlier posted in Tamilnadu. He further deposed that on 02/12/2007 at around 10.00 a.m., the accused took from him the keys of the said residential quarter by saying that his guests were coming and he wanted to keep the luggage in the said quarter. He further deposed that on 02/12/2007 at around 10.00 a.m., the accused took from him the keys of the said residential quarter by saying that his guests were coming and he wanted to keep the luggage in the said quarter. He further deposed that on 06/12/2007 in the morning he came to know that the accused had committed murder and suddenly, he recalled that he had handed over the keys of his residential quarter to the accused; he went there and found that there were two suitcases and three bags in inner bedroom of the said quarter; he further deposed that at about 6.30 p.m. along with police officers, he went to residential quarter and showed those suitcases and bags and the accused came within 5 minutes and opened the luggage. Thereafter, the police prepared panchanama in the presence of the pancha witnesses. He further deposed that he could not remember from where the accused got the keys, but stated that the police took search and opened all suitcases and bags and locked the same and retained the keys with them. The suitcases were subsequently handed over by him to Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station. 34. PW20-Ajit Kumar Gunwal, a panch witness for the panchanama exhibit 128 which was carried out on 06/12/2007 in the residential quarter no.405/B, deposed that he along with another panch and the accused and the police, were present; the police had seized the suitcases and the bags and conducted panchanama in his presence and there was a purse in the suit case, which was containing PAN card of a lady by name Rajlaximi, some photographs and Identity Card bearing a photograph of a lady by name Rajlaximi which he identified in the Court. PW29-Sammy Tavares deposed about the seizure panchanama exhibit 128 effected by him in the presence of two pancha witnesses pursuant to which a card in the name of Rajlaximi, passport size photographs of a lady, joint photograph of the accused and the lady and Identity Card of Rajlaximi and some coins were seized. 35. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he had taken the keys of quarter no.405/B from PW23-Shetu Raman and that he had told PW23 that his guests were coming and he wanted to accommodate the guests in his quarter. 35. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he had taken the keys of quarter no.405/B from PW23-Shetu Raman and that he had told PW23 that his guests were coming and he wanted to accommodate the guests in his quarter. The evidence of PW23 coupled with the evidence of such pancha PW20-Ajit Kumar Gunwal, a panch for the seizure of a purse which was found in the suitcase containing PAN card of a lady by name Rajlaximi, some photographs and Identity Card bearing a photograph of the lady by name Rajlaximi, and that of PW29-Sammy Tavares establishes that the police had attached lady's purse with PAN card of Rajlaximi, photograph of the accused, photograph of the deceased, joint photograph of the accused and the deceased and Identity card of the deceased MO24. No doubt the statement by PW23 that the suitcases were subsequently handed over to him by the Police Inspector, is not a correct statement, but this fact by itself is not sufficient to jettison the other cogent evidence, which clearly proves that the accused had taken the keys of room No.405/B from PW23 and had kept the above mentioned belongings of Rajlaximi in the said room. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish this circumstance. 36. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that at the time of arrest of the accused on 05/12/2007 at about 8.30p.m., a Nokia mobile phone was found on his person and from this phone, he had been calling up to Rajlaximi. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW18-Govind Mandrekar, who had acted as pancha witness with PW27-P.I. Uttam Dessai. PW18Govind deposed that at the time of arrest, the accused had a gold chain with locket at his neck and had a mobile of Nokia make in his pant and there were scratches on both of his arms. He further deposed that under the panchanama, the gold chain, certificate of Goldsmith were attached and he identified MO 1 as the same. He also identified the Nokia mobile phone MO2, which was attached from the accused. His evidence stands corroborated by panchanama exhibit 116 and that of PW27 -P.I. Uttam Raut Dessai. 37. PW19-Datta Angre, who was a Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular, produced the call details of Mobile No.9822897074, which were under exhibit 126. He also identified the Nokia mobile phone MO2, which was attached from the accused. His evidence stands corroborated by panchanama exhibit 116 and that of PW27 -P.I. Uttam Raut Dessai. 37. PW19-Datta Angre, who was a Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular, produced the call details of Mobile No.9822897074, which were under exhibit 126. He further deposed that he did not know in whose name the mobile handset was registered. However, the same is proved from the letter exhibit 125, which was sent to the Manager Idea Cellular, by S. P. South Goa on 26/12/2007 mentioning that Mobile Number of the accused was 9822897074. Perusal of call details discloses that there were several calls made from the mobile of the accused to mobile no.9962233494 which was mobile number of the deceased, for the period 01/10/2007 till 03/12/2007. Thus, the above evidence clearly establishes that the accused had been making contacts with the deceased over a period of time. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove this circumstance by cogent evidence. 38. The next two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are that the accused had six injuries on his forearms and that the accused made admission to PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes that he had sustained injuries in the scuffle with the deceased Rajlaximi in his rental house on 04/12/2007 between 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes deposed that he had examined the accused on 06/12/2007 at about 12.20 p.m. He identified the certificate exhibit 94. He deposed that he found the following injuries on the person of the accused: (1) Crescentic scratch abrasion, dark brown, hard scave, 5 mm X linear with concavity outwards on front aspect, middle third of left forearm, lower end its placed 14.5 cms above left wrist flexure. He deposed that he found the following injuries on the person of the accused: (1) Crescentic scratch abrasion, dark brown, hard scave, 5 mm X linear with concavity outwards on front aspect, middle third of left forearm, lower end its placed 14.5 cms above left wrist flexure. (2) Cresentic scratch abrasion, dark brown hard scave, 4 mm X linear with concavity outwards, on front aspect of upper third of left forearm, upper end is place 9.5 cms below left elbow fluxer, (3)Crescentic scratch abrasion, dark brown hard scave, 7 mm X linear with concavity outwards on front outer aspect of lower third of right forearm, lower end is placed 10.5 cms of right wrist flexure, (4) Crescentic scratch abrasion, dark brown hard scave, 3 mm X linear on front outer aspect of lower third of right forearm, lower end placed 8 cms above right wrist flexure, (5) Crescentic scratch abrasion, dark brown hard scave, 4 mm X 2 mm directed downwards and outwards on front outer aspect of lower third of right forearm, lower end is placed 5.2 cms above right wrist flexure. (6) Crescentic scratch abrasion, dark brown hard scave, 3 mm X 1 mm horizontal placed directed outwards on front outer aspect of lower third of right forearm, lower end is placed 3.7 cms above right wrist flexure. He further deposed that the injuries could be caused by finger nails. The injuries were simple in nature. The age of the injuries 2 to 3 days prior to examination of the accused. He further deposed that on enquiry, the accused narrated that he was with Rajlaximi on 04/12/2007 between 1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. in his rental house owned by Vinay Surlekar at Adarshnagar, Chicalim and during the said time, scuffle took place between him and Rajlaximi. In the cross-examination, he stated that the accused was brought by Police Sub Inspector John Fernandes. He admitted that history of incident narrated in the certificate was also giving all the details on the request letter sent to him. He further stated that he did not know as to whether medical jurisprudence required the Medical Officer to ask the injured as to how he had sustained injury. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to this witness that the accused had not narrated anything before him in connection with the incident in question. He further stated that he did not know as to whether medical jurisprudence required the Medical Officer to ask the injured as to how he had sustained injury. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to this witness that the accused had not narrated anything before him in connection with the incident in question. He further deposed that the accused did not narrate before him the nature of the scuffle or the manner in which he sustained the injuries. The above evidence of PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes which is corroborated by certificate exhibit 94 clearly establishes that the above referred six injuries were found on the person of the accused and the same could have been caused by finger nails. No doubt, in his evidence he has admitted that the police handed over request letter to him, which also mentions the history of the incident. Although it was suggested to this witness that the accused had not narrated to him the incident in question, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve PW15-Andre Fernandes on this aspect since there is absolutely no evidence brought on record that he had cause to depose against the accused. The mere fact that the history was given in the request letter submitted by police by itself would not be sufficient to discredit the version of this witness on oath that it was the accused, who had given the manner in which he had sustained these injuries. 39. In Kanda Padayachi versus State of Tamilnadu; AIR 1972 SC 66 , the Apex Court considered whether the statement made by the accused to a doctor, was admissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. In the said case, the accused had stated to the Doctor that the injury was caused by the deceased, who on the night of the incident, had caused injury on the two of the accused by biting them. The Apex Court held that the statement made by the accused was admissible and was not hit by Section 26. The Apex Court held that the confession has to be direct acknowledgment of the guilt of the offence in question and further held that if it falls short of such a plenary acknowledgment of guilt, it would not be a confession even though the statement or incriminating fact taken along with the other evidence tends to prove his guilt. The Apex Court held that the confession has to be direct acknowledgment of the guilt of the offence in question and further held that if it falls short of such a plenary acknowledgment of guilt, it would not be a confession even though the statement or incriminating fact taken along with the other evidence tends to prove his guilt. The Apex Court held that though the confession made by the accused was not admissible, a statement of an incriminating fact though admission and not confession, is admissible and can be relied upon as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. The evidence of PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes clearly proves that the accused had admitted that the injuries on his body were caused to him in the scuffle between him and Rajlaximi. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that when the accused was examined on 06/12/2007 by PW15-Dr. Andre Fernandes, the accused had six injuries on his forearms as mentioned by PW15 and that the accused had admitted before him that he had sustained these injuries in the scuffle with Rajlaximi in his rental house on 04/12/2007 between 1 to 1.30 p.m. Although the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in reply to question nos.97 to 105 denied that he had six injuries on his person, caused by finger nails, but stated that he had caused the injuries on his right forehand on 05/12/2007 when he was in a police custody, it is difficult to accept the statement made by the accused inasmuch as no suggestion to that effect was put to any of the prosecution witnesses including the police officer, who had arrested him and the pancha for arrest panchanama. Therefore, the explanation given by the accused is nothing but an afterthought and as such, deserves to be rejected outright. 40. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that from the rented premises of the accused blood and urine report of Rajlaximi were attached. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has relied upon PW17-Tara Kerkar, who has acted as pancha witness along with Panjak Shetty. 40. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that from the rented premises of the accused blood and urine report of Rajlaximi were attached. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has relied upon PW17-Tara Kerkar, who has acted as pancha witness along with Panjak Shetty. The evidence of PW17-Tara Kerkar which is corroborated by panchanama exhibit 111 and further corroborated by the evidence of PW26-PSI Sanjay Dalvi, who had attached the blood and urine test report of Rajlaximi on 06/12/2007 between 2.10a.m. to 3.40a.m., clearly proves that the blood and urine test report of Rajlaximi were attached from the tenanted premises of the house. The evidence of this panch witness PW17 discloses that she had acted as a panch for the spot of incident panchanama. She admitted in cross-examination that she acted in 4 to 5 cases and therefore, was in regular contact with the police. The witness denied that she had acted as pancha witnesses in more than 20 to 25 cases pertaining to Vasco Police Station. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW17-Tara Kerkar and that of PW26-PSI Dalvi, we have no hesitation to hold that blood and urine report of Rajlaximi were seized from the tenanted premises of the accused on 06/12/2007. The mere fact that the witness admitted that she was witness in 4 to 5 cases by itself would not be sufficient to discredit her testimony, more particularly having regard to the nature of the documents seized during the panchanama. It is difficult to believe that these documents were planted by the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused. 41. We shall now deal with the submissions made by Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. Insofar as the submission made by Mr. Dessai that the learned Judge, after having acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C., could not have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, we find that the charge under Section 201 of I.P.C. was framed against the accused on the basis that the accused had caused the evidence of murder to disappear by concealing the dead body of Rajlaximi in wooden box and tried to dispose it of and further destroyed the ligature material and belongings such as sandal, diary etc of Rajlaximi with an intention of screening himself from the legal punishment. 42. Insofar as the charge against the accused that he caused disappearance of the evidence by concealing the dead body of the Rajlaximi in wooden box and that he tried to dispose it of is concerned, the same does not stand established inasmuch as the dead body was found near the rented premises of the accused. It cannot be said that the accused tried to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder by putting the dead body in the box. Insofar as the destruction of ligature material and belongings of the deceased is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish these circumstances and as such, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. It is pertinent to note that the accused took the police to a place in the Naval post, Mangor Hill, where there was a dustbin, nothing was found at the said place and as such, the learned Judge was absolutely justified in holding that the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. was not proved. It is difficult to hold that the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. would necessarily result in acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Dessai that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. has to be set aside in view of his acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. Mr. Dessai further submitted that the prosecution has not proved the motive which assumes much importance in the case based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the case of Babu Versus State of Kerala (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dessai, the Apex Court has held that the motive in the case depending upon circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused, after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pannayar Vs. State of Tamilnadu; (2009)9 SCC 152 and State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Pal; (2008) 16 SCC 73. Mr. Dessai, the Apex Court has held that the motive in the case depending upon circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused, after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pannayar Vs. State of Tamilnadu; (2009)9 SCC 152 and State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Pal; (2008) 16 SCC 73. Mr. Dessai has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Hirudkar (supra), in which it has been held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes much importance. 43. Mr. Ferriera, learned Public Prosecutor is justified in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand; (2010)10 SCC 439 in which the Apex Court, after considering the several judgments of the Apex Court, held that if motive is proved that would supply a link in chain of circumstantial evidence, but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. In the said case, the Apex Court maintained the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. holding that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the offences although no motive had been proved by the prosecution. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence against the accused is clinching and having regard to the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding the circumstantial evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that the circumstances referred to above, which have been proved clearly establish that it was the accused and accused alone, who was the author of the crime. 44. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the evidence must satisfy the following tests : (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved, must be cogently and firmly established. (ii) Those circumstances should be of definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (iii) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability a crime was committed by the accused and none else. (ii) Those circumstances should be of definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (iii) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability a crime was committed by the accused and none else. (iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 45. From the above circumstances, which have been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that it was the accused and accused alone, who had committed the murder of Rajlaximi in his rental premises on 04/12/2007 between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. In our considered opinion, the mere fact that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive on the part of the accused by itself is not sufficient to jettison the cogent evidence led by the prosecution proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is well established that the motive is locked in the mind of the accused and it is difficult for the prosecution to unfold the same. 46. Since Mr. Dessai relied upon certain judgments in support of his submissions, we deem it appropriate to deal with the same. In the case of Sarwan singh (supra), the Apex Court, while acquitting the accused, has held that the prosecution story may be true, but between “may be true” and “must be true” there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. In the case of Mausam Singh Roy and others (supra), the Apex Court has held that there cannot be moral conviction on suspicion alone and the burden is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Apex Court further held that graver the offence stricter is the decree of proof. In the case of Mausam Singh Roy and others (supra), the Apex Court has held that there cannot be moral conviction on suspicion alone and the burden is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Apex Court further held that graver the offence stricter is the decree of proof. In the case of Yashpal and another (supra), the Apex Court has held that the incriminating materials not brought to the notice of the accused while examining them under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has held that the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that incriminating materials not brought to the notice of the accused while examining them under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in para 16 has noted that there was no reference to any of the incriminating materials. If the foundation of the prosecution was the alleged confession before the customs authorities that was not brought to the notice of the accused persons. 47. In our considered opinion, the above judgments do not advance the case of the appellant/ accused inasmuch as the ratio of these judgments is not attracted in the present case. No doubt, in the present case the first informant Shri Shriniwas Vighnesh, who had lodged the report, could not be examined during trial since he had expired. It was argued on behalf of the accused that it was Vighnesh, who could be involved in the commission of murder of Rajlaximi. In answer to question no.217 put to the accused in statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he was knowing Rajlaximi before his marriage, which took place in the year 2004. After his marriage, Vighnesh developed relation with Rajlaximi and he called Rajlaximi at Goa; he knew everything about his (the accused) address and taking advantage of this situation he (Vighnesh) committed a lot of things against him. 48. During the trial, nothing has been brought on record by the accused to establish the complicity of Vighnesh in the commission of murder of Rajlaximi. 48. During the trial, nothing has been brought on record by the accused to establish the complicity of Vighnesh in the commission of murder of Rajlaximi. Having regard to the fact that the dead body of the deceased Rajlaximi was found in the box near the rented premises of the accused, it is difficult to accept that Vighnesh could have caused murder of Rajlaximi and after committing her murder, could have put her dead body in a box and kept the same near the rented premises of the accused to falsely implicate him. Therefore, the stand of the accused that Vighnesh was involved in the murder of the deceased has absolutely no foundation and deserves to be rejected outright. Thus, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution evidence clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/ accused has committed murder of Rajlaximi on 04/12/2007 between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. 49. Insofar as the submission made by Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/ accused that the learned Sessions Judge has used certain incriminating circumstances against the accused without putting them to the accused is concerned, perusal of the record discloses that the learned Sessions Judge had put all the major incriminating circumstances to the accused while recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. and some of them have been even admitted by the accused, to some of them, we have also made reference hereinabove. Even though, the circumstances, which have not been put to the accused are excluded from consideration, yet remaining incriminating circumstances are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Dessai that the accused deserves to be acquitted of the charge of murder on the ground that some of the incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused. 50. Insofar as the submission made by Mr. Dessai that even if the prosecution case is taken as proved, at the most, the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of I.P.C. is proved against the accused is concerned, we find absolutely no merit in the submission. 50. Insofar as the submission made by Mr. Dessai that even if the prosecution case is taken as proved, at the most, the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of I.P.C. is proved against the accused is concerned, we find absolutely no merit in the submission. Firstly, no foundation has been laid by the accused either to establish that any of the exceptions to section 300 of I.P.C. are attracted or that the accused did not intend to cause the murder of Rajlaximi. On the contrary, the above circumstances, which have been proved against the accused, conclusively establish that the murder of Rajlaximi was a planned one. Therefore, we are unable to accept the alternate submission of Mr. Dessai that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of I.P.C. In our considered opinion, the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., do not warrant any interference. 51. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.