Judgment :- Dipak Saha Ray, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act)—cum--Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan in connection with Sessions Case No.139 of 1998 (Sessions Trial No.11 of 1999) arising out of Jamalpur P.S Case No. 95 of 1996 dated 23.12.1996 Under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution originates from a telephonic information received by Officer-in-charge of Jamalpur P.S on 23/12/1996 that marks of human blood had been found on the bank of a tank known as Sugre Smasan Pukur and a human leg could be seen in the water hyacinths of the said tank. Receiving the information, S.I., Nanigopal Pal of Jamalpur P.S went to the spot and saw the assemblage of villagers at the bank of the said tank. One headless dead body covered with water hyacinth, was recovered from inside the tank. The local people failed to identify the headless dead body. Police seized that dead body, took photographs of the same. On the basis of a written complaint of one Asit Ghosh received at the spot, police registered Jamalpur P.S case number 95 of 1996 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. For the purpose of identification of the said headless dead body, a news was published in the daily newspaper that a head less dead body had been recovered from a tank at Jamalpur. Seeing that news item, one Jyotin Das of Belghoria, Calcutta came to Jamalpur police station along with his sister-in-law (Boudi) and identified the said dead body as the dead body of his elder brother, Jyotish Das at Burdwan hospital morgue. Acting on the information of Jyotin Das, police arrested the accused Ratan Sikdar from his residence situated at Mauza Udaipur, P.SJamalpur, District - Burdwan. Pursuant to the statement of the accused, the severed head of the dead body was recovered from Sugre Samsan Pukur as per showing of the accused. Police seized the same under seizure list and took the photograph of the same and thereafter it was sent for post mortem examination at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. Jyotin Das and his sister-in-law also identified the said truncated head as the head of Jyotish Das. Police seized the same under seizure list and took the photograph of the same and thereafter it was sent for post mortem examination at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. Jyotin Das and his sister-in-law also identified the said truncated head as the head of Jyotish Das. As per the confessional statement of the accused person, the weapon of offence i.e., a big “DAA” was recovered from the watery portion of the tank of one Dhananjoy of his village. Pursuant to the said statement of accused Ratan Sikdar wearing apparels of the deceased were also recovered from the tank of the privy of accused Ratan Sikdar. The case as sequeled by the prosecution is that both the accused and the deceased Jyotish Das were co-businessmen and they used to sell green vegetables at Belghoria. Once the accused had borrowed Rs 8000/-from the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased insisted on repayment of the said money. In order to avoid the repayment of the said loan of Rs 8000/-, the accused hatched a plan to eliminate the victim Jyotish Das from this world. So, the accused person asked the deceased to visit his house at Udaipur to receive his money. On 23.12.1996, the deceased left his home to visit the house of the accused at Udaipur to collect the money. The deceased reached Jougram railway station and met the accused person. Then both of them left for the house of the accused person on foot. The accused had the weapon of offence hidden in a bamboo clump. On the pretext of having a smoke, the accused stopped near the cremation ground and offered the victim a bidi. W hen the victim bent to light the bidi, the accused took out the weapon (DAA) and struck him on his neck with that ‘DA’. As the head could not be separated by a single blow, he repeated it many times and finally the head got severed from the body. Subsequently, he hid the weapon of offence, truncated head of the dead body and the headless dead body as mentioned above. The Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused person/present appellant for the offences punishable under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and other relevant materials, charges Under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused/appellant herein. The Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused person/present appellant for the offences punishable under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and other relevant materials, charges Under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused/appellant herein. who however, pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried when the said charges were read over and explained to him. In defence, the accused took the plea of innocence and denied prosecution allegation. In order to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused person, prosecution examined 17 witnesses including the Doctors-- Dr. Rabindra Nath Karmakar (P.W-12) and Dr. S. Chakraborty (P.W-15) who conducted autopsy and the Investigating Officer Mr. Nanigopal Pal (P.W-17). After taking into consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances as transpired from the evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court found the accused person guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 / 201 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him there under. The Learned Trial Court passed a sentence of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for further six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for further three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction, inter-alia, on the grounds that : (i) The circumstances sought to be pitted against the accused to ensure conviction were not cogently and firmly established in accordance with law; and (ii) The motive which the prosecution sought to ascribe upon the accused could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The convict appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction, inter-alia, on the grounds that : (i) The circumstances sought to be pitted against the accused to ensure conviction were not cogently and firmly established in accordance with law; and (ii) The motive which the prosecution sought to ascribe upon the accused could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no denying the fact that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the Learned Trial Court had drawn the conclusion of the guilt of the accused person relying upon the following proven circumstances; (i) Recovery of headless dead body which was kept concealed under the hyacinth of a tank situated by the side of the cremation ground which was subsequently identified to be the dead body of one Jyotish Das of Belgharia, Kolkata; (ii) Pursuant to confessional statement of the accused Ratan Sikdar, one truncated head of Jyotish Das was recovered from the said tank about 20/25 ft. away wherefrom the headless dead body was found; (iii) One big ‘Daa’ (Bagi) both sides of which eyes were engraved (weapon of offence) was also recovered pursuant to the statement made by the accused Ratan Sikdar; (iv) The accused also led the recovery of wearing apparel of the deceased from inside the tank of his service privy; (v) Both the accused and the deceased were vegetable seller at Belghoria market in Kolkata. The deceased was a resident of Belghoria and the accused person was the resident of Udaipur under Jamalpur police station. The dead body of Jyotish Das i.e., the victim of this case was recovered from a tank situated in the village of the accused person and that the accused person had visiting terms with the deceased; and (vi) Visit of the accused to the house of deceased at Belghoria in Kolkata about 6 / 7 days after the occurrence and the saying that the deceased had not gone to his village only to remove any suspicion from the mind of the member of the family of the deceased are suggestive of the guilty conscience of the accused. Circumstantial evidence means a combination of facts creating a network through where there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole and not in isolation do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. Circumstantial evidence means a combination of facts creating a network through where there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole and not in isolation do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes more reliable than direct evidence, because of the well known proverb that a man may tell a lie but the circumstances will not. Further, in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it has been pronounced that in order to prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence the following essential ingredients must be satisfied: (i) Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (ii) Circumstances should be conclusive; (iii) All the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused; (iv) Circumstances should exclude the possibilities of guilt of a person other than the accused. These rules of caution propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have become the index of evaluation of the circumstantial evidence. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the Learned Trail Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and erred in placing reliance on the circumstances which had not been legally established. First, it is argued that the prosecution failed to establish by cogent evidence that the headless dead body recovered from the Sugre Samsan Pukur was the dead body of the deceased Jyotish Das. This submission had prompted us to make an appraisal of the evidence on record. It transpires from almost unimpeached evidence on record that on 23/12/1996 one headless dead body of an unknown person was recovered from a tank known as Sugre Samsan Pukur situated at the outskirts of the village of the accused person. The said dead body was seized under the Seizure List, marked Exhibit 1 which was prepared in front of the hotel of P.W 1 and that hotel was situated near the aforesaid tank as it appeared from the rough sketch map marked Exhibit 15(2). The above facts of the prosecution case get sufficient corroboration from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W 17) and of Asish Ghosh (P.W 1), Nurul Hooda (P.W2) and Samar Chandra Sen (P.W 3). The above facts of the prosecution case get sufficient corroboration from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W 17) and of Asish Ghosh (P.W 1), Nurul Hooda (P.W2) and Samar Chandra Sen (P.W 3). P.W 4 who is said to be the brother of the deceased, in his evidence has stated that he along with his ‘Boudi’ (China Das), the wife of the deceased, first came to Jamalpur P.S on seeing the news item in ‘Bartaman’ and saw the photograph of the said headless dead body; thereafter they went to Burdwan Hospital Morgue and identified the said beheaded dead body as the dead body of his elder brother Jyotish Das. Evidence of P.W 4 also goes to show that his brother Jyotish Das left the house on 22/12/1996 at about 02:30 P.M for collecting money from the debtors but he did not return. P.W 4 has also stated in his evidence that either on 28/12/1996 or on 29/12/1996 accused Ratan Sikdar visited their house to enquire about the deceased. At that time Ratan informed them that Jyotish Das had not gone to his house. The above evidence of P.W 4 has not been disputed / controverted by the defence during cross- examination. P.W 17, Shri Nani Gopal Pal, Investigating Officer of this case in his evidence has stated that on 1/1/1997 he went to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital for collecting the Post Mortem report of the said headless dead body. At that time he found Jatin Das (P.W 4) and China Das waiting for having a look at the dead body and when the headless dead body was shown to them, they identified the dead body to be the dead body of Jyotish Das. Relying on the evidence P.W 4 and P.W-17 learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had been able to prove that the headless dead body recovered from the tank known as Sugre Samsan Pukur was the dead body of Jyotish Das of Belgharia, Kolkata. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant/convict that China Das, the wife of Jyotish Das who allegedly identified the headless dead body at Burdwan Hospital Morgue as the dead body of her husband was not examined by doctor and as such non-examination would fatally affect the identification of the dead body. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant/convict that China Das, the wife of Jyotish Das who allegedly identified the headless dead body at Burdwan Hospital Morgue as the dead body of her husband was not examined by doctor and as such non-examination would fatally affect the identification of the dead body. On 3/1/1997 the truncated head was also recovered under the hyacinth of the said tank wherefrom the headless dead body was recovered. The said recovery was made at the instance of the accused Ratan Sikdar and pursuant to his statement. Accused Ratan Sikdar made statements before the Investigating Officer disclosing the place where he concealed the truncated head, weapon of offence and the wearing apparels of the deceased. The relevant portions of the disclosure statements of the accused which led the recovery of the said articles were admitted in evidence under the provision of Section 27 read with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and were marked Exhibit-13 and 14 respectively. From the relevant portion of the statement which was marked Exhibit 13 it appears that accused Ratan Sikdar disclosed before the police that he had concealed the head of Jyotish Das under the hyacinth of the tank at a distance of 20/25 ft. on the west from the place where the headless dead body was hidden and he could show the said truncated head to the police if he was taken there. Pursuant to that statement police took the accused to Sugre Samsan Pukur where Ratan Sikdar pointed out the place in that tank where he had concealed the head of Jyotish Das. P.W 1 Ashit Das, P.W 2 Nurul Hooda and P.W 3 Samar Chandra Sen have corroborated above facts of the prosecution in the matter of recovery of the truncated head from Sugre Samsan Pukur. P.W 1 and P.W 2 have stated that on 3/1/1997 Ratan Sikdar came near the tank along with the police officer and led the recovery of the truncated head from the said Sugre Samsan Pukur. P.W 3 has also stated that on that date police recovered the head of the dead body from that tank as per showing of accused Ratan Sikdar. The truncated head was seized under seizure list prepared near hotel (Exhibit 3). P.W 3 has also stated that on that date police recovered the head of the dead body from that tank as per showing of accused Ratan Sikdar. The truncated head was seized under seizure list prepared near hotel (Exhibit 3). It has already been mentioned that the hotel of Ashit Das is situated near the tank wherefrom the headless dead body was found and thereafter the truncated head was recovered. It is true that there are minor inconsistencies and contradictions here and there in evidence of the witnesses as regards mode and manner of recovery of the said truncated head. P.W 1 has stated that accused Ratan Sikdar pointed out the said head and the villagers recovered the said head from the watery portion of the tank. P.W 2 has stated that the accused Ratan Sikdar brought out the said truncated head from that tank and P.W 3 has stated police recovered the said head as per showing of the accused Ratan Sikdar. It is argued on behalf of the defence/appellant that P.W-6 has stated that the accused was not present when the head was recovered from the Sugre Samsan Pukur and as such considering the said evidence of P.W-6 with reference to the evidence of Seizure witnesses which is contradictory to each other, it cannot be said that the said recovery was made pursuance to the statement of the accused. In our considered view such minor contradiction and/or inconsistencies are not sufficient to demolish the broad fact that it was the accused and the accused only who knew where the truncated head was kept concealed and because of such prior knowledge, a conduct admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was possible on his part to point out the place wherefrom the truncated head was recovered and the same was medically proved to be matching with the headless dead body of the victim Jyotish Das. We are, therefore, of the view that non-examination of China Das, the wife of the deceased, did not in the facts and circumstances of the case, leave any scope for drawing any adverse presumption to the effect that had she been examined on ‘Dock’ she would not have supported the identification of the dead body of her husband which she had in fact done in the hospital morgue as corroborated by her-in-law Jyotin Das (P.W-4). Now on careful consideration of the evidence of P.W. 6 it appears that PW-6 in his evidence-in-chief has stated that police recovered one human head from the Pukur and that he did not see the accused there. But this witness in the same breath stated during his cross-examination that the seized object was wrapped up with a jute sheet and for that he did not see whether the same was skull or human head. Considering the above antagonistic contradiction between evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-6 we find that his evidence is not reliable and should not be considered in respect of this case. From the evidence of witnesses it appears that there was a big crowd on the bank of the tank where from the truncated head was recovered. It further appears that police personnel, ’Dom’ and others started searching the heads which was pointed out by the accused Ratan Sikdar. So, it is no matter as to who ultimately brought out the truncated head from the said tank, Exhibit-13 i.e., the disclosure statement of the accused leading to the recovery of truncated head also goes to show that the accused led the recovery of truncated head of Jyotish Das. We also find from the evidence of P.W-4 that the said witness also identified the said head as the head of his brother Jyotish Das. The above fact was also elicited during the examination of the Investigating officer. It is further argued that the accused was arrested on 2/1/1997 and was produced before the court on 4/1/1997 in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, the said detention from 2/1/1997 to 4/1/1997 i.e. the period of detention between date of arrest and date of production before the Learned Court, the appellant was in illegal custody and during such period i.e. on 3/1/1997 the appellant allegedly made disclosure statement and pursuant to such statement the truncated head was recovered and such statement leading to recovery cannot be admitted in evidence as per the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the contrary the Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the Learned Trial Court has rightly admitted the portion of the statement in evidence in which the accused disclosed the place where the truncated head was kept concealed because at that time the accused was in police custody, nevertheless the custody of the accused was retained beyond the time limit prescribed by the law. It was altogether a different issue which could have been agitated by the accused at the appropriate stage. Because the accused had not done it at the appropriate stage and allowed the trial to proceed, he cannot be allowed to raise an issue which this court of appeal cannot decide. Admittedly, the accused made such disclosure on 3/1/1997 which led the recovery of the said truncated head. It is also admitted that during that period the accused was in custody of the police and the essential pre-condition of invoking the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was that the accused at that material point of time would be in police custody. So, there was no bar to admit such disclosure statement in evidence as per the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. We also find sufficient force in such argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent /State. Another limb of argument on behalf of the appellant is that the said truncated head was the detached head of some other corpses which were taken to the cremation ground for burning. It has already been discussed that the accused / appellant here in made disclosure statement before the police that he had hidden the head of Jyotish Das under the hyacinth of the tank at a distance of 20 / 25 ft. on the west from the place where headless dead body was concealed and he could show it to the police if he was taken there. Pursuant to that statement police went to the spot and Ratan Sikdar pointed out the place in the tank where he concealed the truncated head of Jyotish Das. Accordingly the relevant portion of such statement which led to recovery was admitted in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and was marked Exhibit 13. Pursuant to that statement police went to the spot and Ratan Sikdar pointed out the place in the tank where he concealed the truncated head of Jyotish Das. Accordingly the relevant portion of such statement which led to recovery was admitted in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and was marked Exhibit 13. The Learned Trial Judge had made an analytical discussion on 2 post-mortem reports (Exhibit 9 & 10) --- one for the headless body and the other for the truncated head and came to a logical conclusion that the head which was subsequently recovered was nothing but the head of the headless dead body which was earlier recovered from the same tank and both the objects taken together went a long way to establish that it was the dead body of the victim Jyotish Das. In coming to that conclusion the Trial Judge pointed out a very significant feature. It was observed by the Learned Trial Judge that certain portion of the backside of the head remained with the headless dead body of the deceased and that portion of the head was found to be conspicuously absent in the truncated head subsequently recovered from the same tank but from a different location; and the said truncated head was glaringly showing the marks of chopping of that portion. Such an argument would have been swallowed even with a pinch of salt, had the object recovered from the same tank being a skull instead of being a truncated head and there were other evidence to show that many other skeletons without skulls were also found lying in the adjoining cremation ground. We therefore found nothing to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Trial Judge and that being so, we cannot countenance the argument advanced in this behalf by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Learned Trail Judge had also fallen back upon the other incriminating circumstances i.e. the recovery of weapon of offence and wearing apparels of the deceased in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused Ratan Sikdar under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Learned Trail Judge had also fallen back upon the other incriminating circumstances i.e. the recovery of weapon of offence and wearing apparels of the deceased in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused Ratan Sikdar under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer of this case (P.W.17) in his evidence stated that on 5/1/1997 accused while in police custody made a statement led to the recovery of the weapon of offence from the tank of one Dhananjay Dey and also the wearing apparels of the deceased from inside the tank from the service privy of the accused Ratan Sikdar. The relevant portion of the said disclosure statement leading to the recovery of big ‘Daa’, wearing apparels of the deceased was marked Exhibit 14. The Investigating Officer (P.W 17) proved the Seizure List under which the weapon of offence was seized. P.W 7, Bijan Dey one of the Seizure List witnesses supported the factum of seizure of weapon of offence. P.W 14 (Debasis Dey) stated that the police went to the bank of the tank of Dhananjay Dey and thereafter police was found with a ‘Katari’ there and that at that material point of time the accused was found present there. This witness turned hostile towards prosecution and as such he was allowed to be cross-examined by prosecution itself as per provision of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is argued on behalf of the appellant convict that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of a hostile witness and it should be discarded totally. There is law relating to appreciation of the offence of a hostile witness. Cross examination of witness by a party calling him does not make him unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. Granting of permission by the Court to cross examine his own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act does not amount to an adjudication of the veracity of a witness. If a witness, on the ground that he is suspected to have turned hostile, is permitted by the Court to be cross examined by the party who called him, the whole of the evidence of that witness does not become worthless. It is upon to the Court to find out what portion of the evidence was true, believable and consistent with the proven fact of the prosecution. It is upon to the Court to find out what portion of the evidence was true, believable and consistent with the proven fact of the prosecution. The prosecution case was that the accused led the police to the bank of a tank and as per his showing the weapon of offence i.e., a big ‘Daa / Katari’ with special mark of identification was recovered. P.W 14 ( Debasis Dey) corroborated the prosecution case to the extent that he was present at the bank of the tank and there he saw the accused, the police officer and the ‘Katari’ in the hand of that police officer. This part of the evidence, instead of contradicting the prosecution case, rendered sufficient support to the recovery of the weapon of offence. P.W 7, Bijan Dey had also proved his signature on the Seizure List under which the big ‘Daa,’ that is the weapon of offence, was recovered. He was not offered any suggestion from the defence side that the said weapon was planted by the Investigating Officer. Thus, relying on the evidence of P.W 7, P.W 14 and P.W 17 and the disclosure statement of the accused (Exhibit 14), the Learned Trial Court held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused while in police custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We do not find any fault with that finding of the Learned Trail Court. On scrutiny of the evidence of P.W-17 (Mr. Nanigopal Pal, S.I. of Police) we find that the accused made a statement before the police which led to the recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased from inside the tank of service privy of the accused person. It further appears that the said wearing apparels were smeared with night soil and after recovery, the same were washed in a tube well and thereafter seizure of the said articles were made. From the evidence of P.W 8 and 9 we also find that one ‘Shirt’ and one ‘Pant’, which were recovered from the house of Ratan Sikdar, were seized under a seizure list. From the cross-examination of P.W 8 it appears that the police prepared the seizure list sitting in a vacant place situated by the side of the village pathway. From the evidence of P.W 8 and 9 we also find that one ‘Shirt’ and one ‘Pant’, which were recovered from the house of Ratan Sikdar, were seized under a seizure list. From the cross-examination of P.W 8 it appears that the police prepared the seizure list sitting in a vacant place situated by the side of the village pathway. Now, we find from the rough sketch map [Exhibit 15(1)] that the said pathway is situated near the house of the accused person. Moreover, during cross-examination of P.W 8 and 9 the defence did not throw any suggestion to the said witnesses denying the recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased from inside the service privy of the accused person. During cross-examination of P.W 17 it was not also suggested that the wearing apparels were not the wearing apparels of the deceased. The accused person did not offer any explanation during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this incriminating circumstances of the recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased from his service privy. The naked dead body of the victim Jyotish Das was recovered from a tank. It was suggestive of the fact that after commission of the murder the wearing apparels of the victim were removed obviously with the idea that the removal of the wearing apparels would render the identification of the dead body of the victim in future very difficult if not impossible. It was suggestive of the fact that after commission of the murder the wearing apparels of the victim were removed obviously with the idea that the removal of the wearing apparels would render the identification of the dead body of the victim in future very difficult if not impossible. The recovery of the wearing apparels which were removed from the person of the victim, from the service privy of the accused, in absence of any satisfactory explanation of the accused even during examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure would erringly led to the presumption of fact that it was the accused and no one else who removed the wearing apparels of the deceased before it was hidden under the water hyacinth of a tank known as Sugre Samsan Pukur which was very close to the place identified by the Investigating Officer as the place of occurrence by marks of blood lying over there; and that the accused person and no one else had kept those wearing apparels of the deceased concealed inside his service privy; and that such recovery was not possible if the accused person had not disclosed his prior knowledge in his disclosure statement about the existence of those wearing apparels of the deceased in his service privy. This incriminating circumstances was thus established by cogent and convincing evidence on record. In the instant case the prosecution has tried to establish the case with the help of the disclosure statements of the accused person and recovery of the incriminating articles pursuant to his statements. Other incriminating circumstances and also the conduct of the accused person have supported the prosecution case. The deceased and the accused used to sell vegetables at Belgharia market in Kolkata and they had close acquaintance with each other and they had also visiting terms. On 22/12/1996 deceased Jyotish Das left his house for collecting money from the debtors and he did not return home. The headless dead body was recovered from the tank of a village where the accused person lived. Subsequently, the severed head, wearing apparels and weapon of offence were recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Ratan Sikdar. On 22/12/1996 deceased Jyotish Das left his house for collecting money from the debtors and he did not return home. The headless dead body was recovered from the tank of a village where the accused person lived. Subsequently, the severed head, wearing apparels and weapon of offence were recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Ratan Sikdar. The brother of the deceased in his statement has also stated that either on 28/12/1996 or on 29/12/1996 accused Ratan Sikdar visited the house of Jyotish Das at Belgharia and enquired about Jyotish Das and at that time on being asked the accused stated that Jyotish Das did not go to his house. So, the visit of the accused in the house of the deceased after the murder of Jyotish Das and before his arrest betrayed the normal and common instinct of the criminal to visit the place of occurrence and to meet the inmates of the deceased to give an impression that he was in no way involved in the commission of the crime. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to establish any motive behind such murder. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that motive looses its importance when the case is established by overwhelming evidence on record. Motive cannot be established by direct evidence. It is the mental condition of the wrong doer which can only be inferred from the attending circumstances. In the case reported in AIR 89 SC 733 it has been observed that the evidence regarding existence of motive which operated in the minds of an assassinator is very often within the reach of others. The motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known to the assassinator and no one else may know what gave birth to the evil thought in the mind of the assassinator. A crime can take place, even without pre-meditation or pre-planning in the context of a particular situation, on the spur of the moment. Motive is not always an integral part of the crime. Sometime crime could be committed even without any motive at all. A crime can take place, even without pre-meditation or pre-planning in the context of a particular situation, on the spur of the moment. Motive is not always an integral part of the crime. Sometime crime could be committed even without any motive at all. Secondly, when the fact of the Commission of the crime has been clearly established, it is by no means incumbent upon the prosecution to show that particular motive actuated in the criminal’s mind and induced him to commit the particular crime. Motive, however, adequate cannot sustain a criminal charge and absence of Proof of motive is of no consequence if there is clear and cogent evidence of the Commission of an offence against the accused. The evidence on record reveals that Jyotish Das, a resident of Balghoria in Kolkata was murdered in the village of the accused and that the victim Jyotish Das and the accused Ratan Sikdar used to deal in green vegetable in a market at Kolkata and that they had visiting terms with each other; and that 5/6 days after the commission of murder but before the publication of the news of recovery of the headless dead body of a person from Sugre Samsan Pukur, the accused had been to the house of victim at Balghoria ostensibly to enquire about the victim and on the asking of the members of the family of the victim the accused told them that Jyotish Das had not been to his house. This previous conduct of the accused was very much relevant if analysed in the context of the subsequent facts and circumstances including the conduct of the accused. Victim Jyotish Das had not returned home for 5/6 days after he left the house on 22.12.1996 when in such situation the accused visited the house of the victim, the members of the family of the victim asked the accused as to whether the victim had gone to his house. In reply the accused stated that the victim had not gone to his house. This part of the evidence suggested that the victim might have gone to the house of the accused for taking the money which was due to him from the accused. In reply the accused stated that the victim had not gone to his house. This part of the evidence suggested that the victim might have gone to the house of the accused for taking the money which was due to him from the accused. The reply of the accused to such a query smacked of the guilty conscience of the accused and such reply was made only to alloy the lurking suspicion in the mind of the members of the family of the victim. That the members of the family of the victim had a lurking suspicious in their mind would be evident by the fact that they rushed to the village of the accused when the news of recovery of a headless dead body in that village was published in the news paper. Their suspicion became true when they disclosed this clue before the Investigating Officer and following that clue the accused person was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement the truncated head, the weapon of offence and the wearing apparels were recovered. The entire mystery which shrouded the murder of Jyotish Das thus was unveiled. The chain of circumstances as discussed above was, in our considered view sufficient to unfold the motive of the accused behind perpetration of such a heinous crime. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made herein before it appears that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution can be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ratan Sikdar was taken to Sugre Samsan Pukur, tank of Dhyananjoy Dey and also to his house wherefrom all the incriminating articles namely truncated head of Jyotin Das, weapon of offence and the wearing apparels of the deceased were recovered in pursuance to his statements. The prosecution has successfully shown the circumstances linked together establishing the guilt of the accused person, meaning thereby that those facts and circumstances led to the only theory that it was the accused and the accused alone committed murder of Jyotish Das and caused disappearance of the evidence and none else. So, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges punishable under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence which have been sought to be assailed, do not call for or deserve any interference. So, the Criminal appeal fails. So, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges punishable under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence which have been sought to be assailed, do not call for or deserve any interference. So, the Criminal appeal fails. Criminal appeal No. 262 of 2011 is, accordingly, dismissed on contest. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below stand affirmed. Let a copy of this Judgment alongwith the LCR be sent to the learned court below at once. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions. Tapen Sen, J.: I agree.