JUDGMENT MRS. TAHILRAMANI, J. The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.8 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant U/S 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 404 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to R. T. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- and for the offence u/s 404 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to R.T. for one year and fine of Rs.200/-. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: Deceased Sunita was the wife of PW2 Chintamani. They were married about 20 years• prior to the incident. Sunita and Chintamani had two sons and two daughters. Sunita was residing alongwith her husband and children at village Wangi, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur. PW2 Chintamani, was working as a labourer in the field and Sunita used to go for grazing shegoats. PWI Tarabai, the mother of Sunita was also residing in the same village. The appellant was also resident of village Wangi. On 22.9.2006, Sunita had gone to the field for grazing she-goats. At about 2.30 pm, PWI Tarabai, the mother of Sunita, went to the field to see her daughter, at that time, she saw that Sunita was lying dead in the field. She noticed injuries on the neck, face and other parts of the body of Sunita. She also noticed that the ornaments which was on the person of the Sunita were missing. PW2 Chintamani, the husband of Sunita was informed. He rushed to the spot and found that Sunita was lying dead and the ornaments on her person ie., gold earrings, gold ganthan, gold mangalsutra and silver anklets were missing. PW2 Chintamani then lodged First Information Report (exhibit 12). In the said FIR, it was stated that some unknown person had murdered his wife and robbed her ornaments. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested on 23.9.2006. During the course of investigation, the ornaments of Sunita were recovered at his instance. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant - original accused u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 404 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested on 23.9.2006. During the course of investigation, the ornaments of Sunita were recovered at his instance. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant - original accused u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. We have care fully considered their arguments, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record. After minutely considering the same, we are of the opinion that the appellant caused the death of Sunita by assaulting her with a stone and by strangulating her and thereafter the appellant has robbed the ornaments of Sunita. 5. At the outset, it may be stated that the fact that Sunita died a homicidal death is not disputed by the defence. PW7 Dr. Punde performed the postmortem on the dead body of Sunita. Dr. Punde, on external examination, found the following injuries on the body of Sunita as under: i) right ear lobe torn; ii) depressed wound on right frontal region iii) depressed wound on right side of mandible; xx3/1 depressed wound on right maxilla; iv) C.L. W. on right side of chin; 4 cms x 2 cms; with fracture mandible body protrude through the wound; v) contusion, 4 cms. X 2 cms on left side of occipital region; vi) black eye (periorbital haemotoma); vii) abrasions, minor and multiple marks on posterior aspect of both elbow joint; viii) depressed knot mark 2 cms wide with ligature mark of 1 cms wide and 3 cms long around anterior aspect of the neck above the adams apple; Upon internal examination of the body of the deceased, Dr. Punde noted following signs and symptoms: i) Head:- depression of right frontal region of scalp; irregular size; - depressed maxilla right side irregular; - fracture of frontal bone directed inside and depressed; - fracture of mandible, right side of body; - fracture of maxilla, right side directed inside; All the injuries noticed on Head were irregular in size and shape. Dr. Punde noticed haematoma with haemorrhage around brain and right side of brain was depressed with brain pale in nature. -Right side anterior teeth were fallen in the oral cavity. In the opinion of Dr.Punde, cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury (haemorrhagic shock) with asphyxia 'due to strangulation. Dr.Punde opined that injury Nos.(ii) (iii) and 3/1 mentioned in column no.17 of the post mortem notes were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death of the deceased. 6. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances against the appellant are as follows: i) Recovery of ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the appellant; ii) Recovery of blood stained clothes of the appellant at his instance; iii) Immediately after the incident, PW4 Archana saw blood stains on the shirt of the appellant; iv) Conduct of the appellant; and v) Motive. 7. As far as the first and second circumstances are concerned, it has come in the evidence of PW 1 Tarabai, who is the mother of Sunita and PW2 Chintamani, the husband of Sunita, that Sunita was found dead in the field and the ornaments on her body were found missing. The ornaments consisted of gold earrings, gold ganthan, gold mangalsutra and. silver anklets. PW3 Sandesh is a panch witness. This witness has stated that on 24.9.2006, at about 10 am, he was called by the police to act as a panch. The appellant was present at the police station. The appellant voluntarily made a statement that he would show the place where he has concealed the ornaments and his clothes. Accordingly, the appellant led the police and the panchas to one house. He showed the roof of the house where he had concealed the ornaments of Sunita as well as his own clothes i.e., shirt and pant. The accused then produced the ornaments, namely, gold earrings, gold ganthan, gold mangalsutra and silver anklets as well as his shirt and pant. Accordingly, the appellant led the police and the panchas to one house. He showed the roof of the house where he had concealed the ornaments of Sunita as well as his own clothes i.e., shirt and pant. The accused then produced the ornaments, namely, gold earrings, gold ganthan, gold mangalsutra and silver anklets as well as his shirt and pant. The shirt and pant were found blood stained. The articles came to be seized by the police. PWI Tarabai and PW2 Chintamani, who are the mother and husband respectively of deceased Sunita, have identified the ornaments recovered at the instance of the appellant to be that of Sunita. The clothes which were produced by the appellant were sent to the Chemical Analyser. As per the C.A. Report (exhibit 46), the shirt of the appellant was found stained with blood of group A. The clothes of the deceased were also found stained with blood group 'A'. This shows that the blood group of the deceased was found on the clothes of the appellant. It is pertinent to note that the C.A. Report (exhibit 48) shows that the blood group of the appellant is 'O' group whereas the blood group found on his shirt is of 'A' group. The pant of the appellant was found stained with human blood. The appellant has not given any explanation for the presence of blood stains on his shirt. 8. Immediately after the incident, PW4 Archana, who is the wife of the employer of the appellant saw that the appellant was in a frightened condition. She saw him at about 3.30 pm. She also noticed some blood stains on the shirt of the appellant at that time. The evidence of PW2 Chintamani shows that when he reached at the spot where the dead body of his wife was lying, he noticed one bundle of grass near the dead body. The spot panchanama (exhibit 8) shows that a bundle of grass was lying near the dead body. In this connection, the evidence of PW 4 Archana is relevant. Archana had stated that on the day of the incident, at about 2.30pm, the appellant went for bringing grass. He came back at about 3.30pm. At that time, the appellant was frightened and there were some blood stains on his shirt. In this connection, the evidence of PW 4 Archana is relevant. Archana had stated that on the day of the incident, at about 2.30pm, the appellant went for bringing grass. He came back at about 3.30pm. At that time, the appellant was frightened and there were some blood stains on his shirt. This shows that the appellant went to get grass and one bundle of grass, from the bundles of grass, which he was carrying, fell on the spot and in a hurry he ran away from the spot and the said bundle remained at the spot. This further corroborates the prosecution case. The evidence of Archana that the appellant was frightened shows the conduct of the appellant. This conduct also shows his mens rea. 9. The last circumstance on which reliance is placed by the prosecution is motive. It is quite apparent that the motive in this case was robbery. The evidence of PWI Tarabai and PW2 Chintamani shows that ornaments on the person of the deceased were missing. These ornaments were recovered at the instance of the appellant. 10. It is well settled that in cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn are to be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. This is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Hanumantvs. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 . This case has been uniformly followed and applied in a large number of cases which rest on circumstantial evidence alone. In the present case, it can certainly be said that all the links in the chain are complete and, therefore, such evidence can be safely relied upon to base a conviction. The circumstances in the present case, are of a conclusive nature and they are sufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt. In the present case, it can certainly be said that all the links in the chain are complete and, therefore, such evidence can be safely relied upon to base a conviction. The circumstances in the present case, are of a conclusive nature and they are sufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt. 11. On going through the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant, hence, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 12. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison Authorities and to the Appellant who is in jail. 13. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Mr.Toraskar, who is on the High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed to represent the appellant in this appeal. We found that he had meticulously prepared the matter and he has very ably argued the appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to him in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay at Rs.2500/-. Appeal dismissed.