JUDGMENT : G. D. SAXENA, J. The Special Judge (NDPS) in the district of Gwalior while disposing of the Sessions Trial No. 322/01, vide impugned judgment and order dated 31st December 2001, convicted the appellant/accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) and further three years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant Bhagwandas stood his trial on the charges for murder of Smt. Rekha Bhatnagar, a resident of Bhind, which is an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was further charged for causing disappearance of the evidence with an intention to screen himself from the legal punishment, which is an offence punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts, in short, just for the adjudication of the matter are that on 3rd June 2000, Smt. Rekha who was working as police constable at Bhind stayed for a while at her residence at Bhahodapur Gwalior with her sister-in-law (Bhabhi), named Smt. Shiksha Raje. At about 2:30- 3:00 in the noon, accused Bhagwandas reached at her residence where a hot exchange of words took place between them on account of return of money of Rs. 30,000/- which was taken by the accused as a bribe for securing her job in the police department at Sheopur. The accused somehow was not intending to return the money to her. It is further case of the prosecution that as and when she used to demand the money, the accused was on one ground or the other sought excuses. In the meantime, extra marital relations allegedly developed between the accused and deceased. On the day of incident at about 3 p.m., Smt. Rekha went with accused Bhagwandas in an auto-rickshaw and thereafter she was not seen alive. It is alleged that on 4th June 2000, in the morning when witness Jaswant (PW-13) was going to attend a natural call, he saw on the way that one dead body contained in a cloth bag was lying near the watercourse. Then, he immediately informed the police station Morar. Accordingly, a Marg Report (Ex.P/17) was written at 37/2000 under the provision of section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and inquired into by the Probationary Sub-Inspector Dinesh Prajapati (PW-16). Then, he immediately informed the police station Morar. Accordingly, a Marg Report (Ex.P/17) was written at 37/2000 under the provision of section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and inquired into by the Probationary Sub-Inspector Dinesh Prajapati (PW-16). Subsequently, the said police officer proceeded to the spot and seized the alleged cloth packet in which a dead body was kept. Other articles vide seizure memo Ex.P/22 were seized. During investigation, the police officer received an information that the unknown dead body was of none else but of Smt. Rekha Bhatnagar, who was killed by Bhagwandas. The unknown female dead body was also identified by Smt. Kusumlata (PW-7) and Dewendra (PW-4) as their daughter and sister. The memo of dead body (Ex.P/20) on the spot after identification of the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The statements of material witnesses were recorded. The incriminating articles were seized and sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. As per post-mortem report, the mode of death was homicidal. Spot map where the dead body was lying in the watercourse was prepared. After Marg inquiry, the F.I.R. was written on 5th June 2000 and Crime No. 356/2000 was registered against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. Accused was arrested. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court, having jurisdiction at Gwalior. On committal, the Sessions trial commenced. The learned trial Judge after hearing the prosecution and defence and on considering the evidence as adduced by the prosecution and defence found all the charges to the hilt and recorded the judgment of conviction and passed the sentence against the appellant, as mentioned above vide impugned judgment, hence this appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for convicted accused/appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial Judge is totally against the provisions of law and the view adopted by the trial Judge shows the total absence of application of mind. It is submitted that to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution examined chance witness, namely, Shiksha Raje (PW-5), who at the relevant time was posted under reserve pool as female Home Guard Sainik in the Home Guard office at Gwalior but the statement of this witness, according to the learned counsel, does not inspire confidence as the same creates suspicion to rely over it. In this respect, learned counsel invited attention of this Court on the statement of a witness S. N. Yadav (DW-1), Platoon Commander of the Home Guard Gwalior who deposed that she was at the relevant time working as female Home Guard Sainik in Home Guard Gwalior and was deputed with other female Home Guards in the Police Station Mahila Gwalior. Another statement of witness Gyasiram (PW-9) who claimed to have seen in between 4-5 p.m., the deceased Smt. Rekha while going by an auto-rickshaw to the way proceeding to the residence of Bhagwandas, is neither reliable nor same finds support from the statement of witness Shahid (PW-3), who as per prosecution informed Gyasiram (PW-9) of the incident. Now, the last witness is Bhogiram (PW-14). As per prosecution case, he saw at about 1 a.m., at MH Crossing, the accused Bhagwandas with one heavy luggage in a cloth bag fixed on a carrier of bicycle while going towards Tikoniya Morar. The evidence of this witness also did not inspire confidence because other witness of the same fact, namely, Roop Singh (PW-2) did not support his version. Learned counsel further drew attention of this Court on the statement of Dinesh Prajapati (PW-16), the Probationary Sub-Inspector posted in the Police Station Morar to show that after receiving an information from a witness Jaswant (PW-13), a Marg Report at No. 36/2000 was written vide Ex.P/17 which was handed over to Head Constable Gokaran Singh (PW-12) for inquiry. During Marg inquiry, Station In-charge of the Police Morar got information through reliable and secret source on telephone that accused Bhagwandas killed Rekha Bhatnagar. He on direction of SHO, called accused Bhagwandas who was very much available in the town and from his possession, some clothes having blood stains were seized vide Ex.P/23. On the next day of the incident, during Marg inquiry, in presence of the accused, statements of family members of the deceased were recorded. The accused was also inquired into and his house was also searched by him during inquiry vide search memo Ex.P/11 and some articles relating to crime were seized by seizure memo Ex.P/9. Thereafter the house of accused was locked. The accused was also inquired into and his house was also searched by him during inquiry vide search memo Ex.P/11 and some articles relating to crime were seized by seizure memo Ex.P/9. Thereafter the house of accused was locked. On 7th June 2000 after lodging the F.I.R. in Police Station, the Investigating Officer, M. L. Sharma (PW-11) In-charge of the Police Morar under custody of the accused recorded his information under section 27 of the Evidence Act and thereafter articles relating to crime were seized by seizure memo Ex.P/15. Because the accused was with police from the beginning, the house was searched by the police officer and a catalog of moveables was also made in his presence. So, as per counsel, the subsequent recovery made from the house of the accused raises suspicion. It is submitted that the learned Trial Judge totally ignored the well established principles of law that the suspicion however strong may be but cannot replace the evidence to reveal the truth. He submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances must form a complete chain of events to prove only the guilt of accused, which are lacking in the present case. On the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellant may be acquitted of the charges framed by the trial Court. In support of his case, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:- "(i) Hanumant Govind Nargunkar vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 . (ii) Sarojni vs. State of M. P., 1993(4) (Supplement) SCC 632. (iii) Eshwaraiah vs. State of Karnataka, 1994 SCC (2) 677. (iv) C. K. Ravindra vs. State of Kerla, 2000 Cri.L.J. (SC) 497. (v) Shankarlal Gyarsilal Dikshit vs. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Cri.L.J. (SC) 325. (vi) Ramesh BabuLal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, 1996 SCC (Criminal) 972. (vii) Kansa Behera vs. State of Orissa, 1987 Cri.L.J. 1857. (viii) Sattatiya @ Satish Rajjana Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 SCC (Criminal) 733. (ix) Balveer Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Criminal) 1158. (x) Shaikh Maqsood vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (6) SCC 583 . (xi) Ranveer Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (6) SCC 595 . (viii) Sattatiya @ Satish Rajjana Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 SCC (Criminal) 733. (ix) Balveer Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Criminal) 1158. (x) Shaikh Maqsood vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (6) SCC 583 . (xi) Ranveer Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (6) SCC 595 . (xii) Musheer Khan @ Badshah and another vs. State of M. P., 2010 (2) SCC (Criminal) 1100. (xiii) Ramesh vs. State of M. P., 2000 Cri.L.J. (MP) 45." 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State contended that the prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt against the accused by adducing statements of material witnesses. It is submitted that though the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution by statements of the material witnesses despite their being close relations but without having any animus against the accused, successfully proved that prior to the incident the deceased had delivered Rs. 30,000/- for securing her job on the post of constable in police department but she could not get the same. She was selected after sometime on the post in police department at Bhind due to her own efforts. Therefore, she was hoping and regularly trying for recovery of the amount which she had given to the accused for securing the job. On the day of incident, the deceased by informing her daughter that for recovery of her aforesaid amount, she was going to Gwalior. The deceased reached her house where she met her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Shiksha Raje. After sometime, the accused reached there. At about 3 p.m., on the same day, the accused left her house together with deceased in presence of Shiksha Raje. Then, deceased and accused both reached at the house of accused at Morar. She was last seen in the house of accused by a witness Gyasiram. On next day morning, near about 8 a.m., witness Jasraj saw the dead body of female lying in the watercourse contained in a cotton bag. On his information, the Marg Report was written and an inquiry was conducted by the Probationary Sub Inspector of the Police Station Morar. The dead body of un-identified female was identified as of Smt. Rekha Bhatgagar by her relatives. On post-mortem, it appeared that death was caused at the relevant time and mode of death was homicidal. On his information, the Marg Report was written and an inquiry was conducted by the Probationary Sub Inspector of the Police Station Morar. The dead body of un-identified female was identified as of Smt. Rekha Bhatgagar by her relatives. On post-mortem, it appeared that death was caused at the relevant time and mode of death was homicidal. The recovery of the articles from the house of accused also connected the accused with the alleged offence. True it is that some prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution version but only on that ground, the entire prosecution version could not be brushed aside. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the chain of the events beyond doubts by the evidence on record and as such the learned trial Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. Hence, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the conviction and sentence of the accused may be upheld. 6. Heard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants as well as leaned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State at sufficient length. Also perused the record of the trial Judge containing the evidence/documents and the impugned judgment and considered the law on the points argued before the Court. 7. It is well settled that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person. In Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 , the Hon. Supreme Court laid down the rule regarding the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. Same has been uniformly followed in a large number of later decisions. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon. Apex Court laid down five principles which constitute the 'Panchasheel' of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and held that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : "(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' be and not 'may be' established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' be and not 'may be' established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 8. Bearing the above principles in mind, let us see whether the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Pappu @ Devendra (PW-4) and Smt. Kusumlata Bhatnagar (PW-7), respectively, brother and mother of deceased, including Smt. Shiksha Raje (PW-7) sister-in-law of the deceased deposed that deceased Reka Bhatnagar was sister, daughter, and sister-in-law (Nanad) of these aforesaid witnesses. They deposed that deceased Rekha Bhatnager was married prior to 7 or more years from the date of incident to one Rakesh Saxena and from their wedlock, two daughters, namely, Ujala, Mohini and one son Deepu was borne. After sometime, there were arisen differences between the couple and therefore both decided to live separate from each other. Said Rakesh Saxena is now residing at Lucknow (U.P.). Initially, Smt. Rekha entered into Government Service in the Woman and Child Welfare Department. After sometime, she joined as Home Guard service and at the time of incident she was serving as Police Constable in Bhind (M.P). After separation of deceased Rekha from her husband Rakesh, she came in close contact with accused Bhagwandas who used to meet her at her residences at Bahodapur and Bhind. Bhagwandas was also serving in the police department. Although, the accused has denied that he did not know the deceased but in the deposition of these witnesses, it has clearly come on record that he was related to the deceased and the fact has also been proved that deceased after separation from her husband Rakesh joined Government service firstly in Woman Welfare Department and thereafter in Home Guards and lastly she was working as Police Constable at Bhind. It is also proved that after separation from her husband, there were developed illicit marital relations in between deceased and accused Bhagwandas and accused usually visited her residence in the presence of her other family members. 10. Shiksha Raje (PW-5) deposed that her sister-in-law was working in the Home Guard Department. She stated that the advertisement for recruitment of Police Constables was published. In connection with the appointment on the post of constable in Sheopur district, she gave a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused but unfortunately the recruitment for such posts in Sheopur district was cancelled. So, the deceased Rekha demanded her delivered money from the accused Bhagwandas who did not intend to return the amount. There was usually quarrel made between them on that count. She also lodged a report in this regard at the Police Station Bahodapur giving rise to a case which was pending in Criminal Court. Accused Bhagwandas insisted her for compromise in that Criminal Case but the deceased was not showing any interest. This circumstance is well supported by other family members, namely, Pappu @ Devendra (PW-4) brother of deceased, Smt. Kusumlata Bhatnagar (PW-7), mother of deceased who also stated that the accused proposed the deceased for Court marriage at her residence which was not accepted by the deceased. She stated that her daughter also lodged the report against the accused for sexual harassment at Police Station Bahodapur. 11. Thus, on perusal of the prosecution witnesses Kusumlata Bhatnager (PW-7), brother Pappu @ Devendra (PW-4) and Shiksha Raje sister-in-law (PW-5) (Bhabhi) of deceased it has been established beyond doubt that due to sweet and sour relationship between the deceased and accused, there was motive behind the incident for committing the crime. 12. Miss Ujala Bhatnager, aged 10 years, (PW-10) daughter of the deceased and Rakesh Saxena deposed that at the relevant time she was residing with her mother Smt. Rekha at Bhind. Her mother was in service of Police Department. She also acquainted with the accused Bhagwandas, who usually came to meet her mother. 12. Miss Ujala Bhatnager, aged 10 years, (PW-10) daughter of the deceased and Rakesh Saxena deposed that at the relevant time she was residing with her mother Smt. Rekha at Bhind. Her mother was in service of Police Department. She also acquainted with the accused Bhagwandas, who usually came to meet her mother. Lastly, near about 8-9 days before death of her mother, accused Bhagwandas visited her mother in the house at Bhind and told her mother to go to Gwalior with him on the ground that he will return her entire amount but her mother denied and told that after getting salary she will reach at Gwalior in 1-2 days of the next month. Thereafter, accused Bhagwandas returned back. She stated that her mother on 3rd June, in the noon, after taking her salary and other articles in a red coloured trip bag, after informing that she is going to purchase the clothes for her brother and also to meet accused Bhagwandas left her house for Gwalior where from she did not return back home. On next day, some person informed that the dead body of her mother is traced out in Gwalior. 13. On perusal of the statement of this witness who is daughter of deceased and residing at Bhind with deceased, it is proved that on the fateful day, her mother (deceased) after informing her daughter that she is going to purchase the clothes for her brother and also to meet accused Bhagwandas left her house for Gwalior where from she did not return back home. 14. Nawabuddin Qazi (PW-15), who was working as Head Constable in the DRP Lines Bhind deposed that he knew Smt. Rekha, who was working in the D.R.P. Lines since 1999. He stated that on 3rd June, 2000 she remained present between 8 a.m. to 12 O'clock and thereafter she left the place. She remained absent in giving her attendance at 8 p.m. on 3rd June,2000. On next day, he came to know from Gwalior Control Room that she was murdered, which, later on, was brought to the notice of the S.P. 15. Smt. Shiksha Raje (PW-5) deposed that on 3rd June 2000, her sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Rekha Bhatnager reached from her duties at her residence at Bahodapur where she was residing. On next day, he came to know from Gwalior Control Room that she was murdered, which, later on, was brought to the notice of the S.P. 15. Smt. Shiksha Raje (PW-5) deposed that on 3rd June 2000, her sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Rekha Bhatnager reached from her duties at her residence at Bahodapur where she was residing. Accused Bhagwandas last time reached there on that day at about 2:30-3:00 p.m. On that very day, there were hot discussions made between the accused and deceased. She stated that thereafter her sister-in-law (Nanad) after wearing blue coloured salwar suit left the place at about 3:30 p.m. with accused Bhagwandas after informing that she is going with Bhagwandas and on return she will purchase and deliver the grocery items and then will proceed to her duties. She was having her salary and other money which she had taken out from the box of the house. She was also having bag containing some clothes. On second day, the police informed that her sister-in-law was murdered. Thereafter, she saw dead body in a mortuary room. In cross-examination, she admitted that on a fateful day she was on duty as Home Guard Sainik. Her arrival was noted in a register of the office and her departure from duties at 5 p.m. was also noted in the same register by his superior officer N.S. Yadav (DW-1). She specifically stated that for taking lunch she returned back home between duty hours without making entry in the above register. Looking to her statement, it is gathered that on a fateful day, the deceased (her sister-in-law) came to her residence, thereafter the accused also came there at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. then there were hot discussions made between the accused and deceased. Thereafter, her sister-in-law (Nanad) with accused left her residence, which she had seen. 16. Looking to her statement, it is gathered that on a fateful day, the deceased (her sister-in-law) came to her residence, thereafter the accused also came there at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. then there were hot discussions made between the accused and deceased. Thereafter, her sister-in-law (Nanad) with accused left her residence, which she had seen. 16. In order to ascertain whether at the relevant time when the deceased as well as accused reached, witness Shiksha Raje (PW-5) was present at the house in question or not, on examining the statements of prosecution witness Shiksha Raje (PW-5) and defence witness N. S. Yadav (DW-1), we find that on the day of incident witness Shiksha Raje (PW-5) who was in reserve duty in the Home Guard Office attended her office at 10 a.m. from where she was deputed for service to Police Station Mahila Gwalior and her entry of return in the evening at 5 p.m. was marked in the office register by her superior officer N. S. Yadav (DW-1). She also deposed in her evidence that the entry of only arrival and departure of the staff is marked in the office register and the timing of intervals needed for proceeding to take lunch is nowhere marked by her officers. She specifically stated that at the time of incident, she attended her duty in the morning at 10 a.m. and returned back home at 5 p.m. Having thus examined the evidence of both the witnesses Shiksha Raje (PW-5) and N. S. Yadav (DW-1), this Court finds that there is nothing otherwise to hold that at the relevant time Shiksha Raje (PW-5) was not present at her Bahodapur residence where the deceased at first reached from Bhind and after her reaching, the accused also reached at her residence and thereafter the deceased and accused both left together. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that on the basis of deposition of defence witness N. S. Yadav (DW-1), the statement of prosecution witness Shiksha Raje (PW-5) could not be doubted. 17. Gyasiram (PW-9) deposed that he is acquainted with accused Bhagwandas. On last year of 3rd June, at about 4-5 p.m., he was going towards the shop of Shahid. At that moment, he saw one lady coming in an Auto-rickshaw and thereafter taking entrance in the residence of accused. 17. Gyasiram (PW-9) deposed that he is acquainted with accused Bhagwandas. On last year of 3rd June, at about 4-5 p.m., he was going towards the shop of Shahid. At that moment, he saw one lady coming in an Auto-rickshaw and thereafter taking entrance in the residence of accused. Next day, he came to know that some woman was murdered and her dead-body was lying in a watercourse. However, another witness of this circumstance, namely, Shahid denied that one woman after getting down from an auto-rickshaw entered inside the house of accused. On this ground, the said witness (Shahid) is declared hostile by the prosecution. However, on perusal of the statement of Gyasiram (PW-9), it is clear that he has no enmity against the accused for giving false statement so this witness Gyasiram (PW-9) appears to be reliable and on his deposition the circumstance that on the fateful day and time the deceased Rekha was seen coming in an auto-rickshaw and thereafter taking entry inside the house of the accused and till that time she was alive, appears to be believable. 18. Bhogiram son of Bhudharam (PW-14) deposed that at about 1:00 a.m., in night, when he was returning home from cinema show, he saw at M.H. Crossing road, the accused Bhagwandas with a heavy luggage (cloth packet) on a carrier of his cycle going towards Tikoniya Morar. He stated that due to heavy luggage on his carrier, the bicycle was going to be imbalanced. On next day, he heard that near Gambhir Nursery, the dead body of unknown lady was lying. In cross-examination, he admitted that his residence is at a distance of 300-400 meters away from the residence of accused. The accused was serving in police department and he usually threatened others, therefore, in night when he saw the accused carrying with a big luggage he did not make any query from him. His son Roopa was called by police in connection of the theft from the residence of Bhagwandas. Other witness Jewanlal (PW-1) from whom the accused had taken the bicycle which was seized during investigation by seizure memo (Ex.P/1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. His son Roopa was called by police in connection of the theft from the residence of Bhagwandas. Other witness Jewanlal (PW-1) from whom the accused had taken the bicycle which was seized during investigation by seizure memo (Ex.P/1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Much stress has been led by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point the statement of Bhogiram (PW-14) was recorded by the I.O. after delay of fifteen days, therefore, the same is not worthy of credence but in view of the other material evidence of the prosecution witnesses supporting his version, this Court does not any force in point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. Jaswant (PW-13) deposed that one year ago in the morning he was going to answer call of nature from his residence situated at Hardev Singh Ki Tall, Morar. He saw on the way in the watercourse one cloth bag which was lying unattended. Accordingly, he informed to police. The police reached the spot and opened that cloth bag in which one dead body was found. Then, Marg Information (Ex.P/17) was written. Gokaran Singh (PW-12), Head Constable posted in Morar Police Station deposed that on 4th June 2000 on receiving information about suspicious death of one un-known lady from Jaswant Singh (PW-13), he wrote the Marg Intimation report (Ex.P/17). 20. Dinesh Prajapati (PW-16) Probationary Sub-Inspector posted in the Police Station Morar, deposed that on 4th June 2000 on allotment of case by Head Constable Moharir, he conducted an inquiry into Marg No. 37/2000. He reached the spot situated near Gambhir Nursery at Hardev Singh Ki Tall Morar and found that one cloth bag was lying in the watercourse. He issued Safeena Form (Ex.P/19) and in presence of the witnesses, he opened the cloth bag in which one dead body of unknown lady was found. Then he prepared the memo of dead body (Ex.P/20) as well as spot map (Ex.P/21) and collected and seized all the articles found on the spot by seizure memo (Ex.P/22). During inquiry, the SHO got an information that the dead body of unknown female was of Rekha and Bhagwandas had killed her. On this information, he searched Bhagwandas and called him to attend inquiry. On second day of incident, clothes of Bhagwandas having blood clots were seized from Bhagwandas by seizure memo (Ex.P/23). During inquiry, the SHO got an information that the dead body of unknown female was of Rekha and Bhagwandas had killed her. On this information, he searched Bhagwandas and called him to attend inquiry. On second day of incident, clothes of Bhagwandas having blood clots were seized from Bhagwandas by seizure memo (Ex.P/23). Dead body of lady was identified by her mother Kusumlata and brother Pappu @ Devendra in the mortuary room by identification memo (Ex.P/24). On second day of incident on 5-6-2000 he arrested accused Bagwandas by arrest memo (Ex.P/26). On that day he also searched the house of Bhagwandas in his presence and seized the wearing clothes having blood stained. One cloth with black and green strips which was used for tying the legs of the deceased was also found and seized. One cloth used for cleaning the house was also recovered and seized vide seizure-memo (Ex.P/11). After effecting the search and seizure as aforesaid, the house of the accused was locked by the police. He also deposed that in Marg Inquiry, he recorded statements of witnesses, namely, Jaswant Singh, Nawabuddin Qazi, A. N. S. Bisen, Gyasiram, Pappu @ Devendra, Smt. Kusumlata Bhatnagar, Shahid Khan and Shiksha Raje. 21. Dr. S. S. Jadon (PW-6) deposed that he was posted as a Medical Officer in the Forensic Department in J. A. Hospital, Gwalior. On 5th June 2000, he with one lady Medical Officer, Dr. Yashodhara Gaur conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Rekha Bhatnagar which was identified by Police Constable Devendra Singh and mother of the deceased Kusumlata Bhatnagar and found following injuries :- "(i) Lacerated wound over middle of forehead near hairline of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. bone deep; (ii) Lacerated wound over left leg middle anteriorly of size 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep; (iii) Lacerated wound at right leg of size 1 cm. x ½ cm. subcutaneous deep margins laterally averted; (v) Multiple lacerated wounds with abrasions over right leg at lower medial area of size 10 cm. x 6 cm. and abrasions of size 1.5 cm. x 1.4 cm.; (v) Multiple contusion over right side back of chest in middle area of size 21 cm. x 11 cm. overlapping each other." 22. On opening body, a clotted blood was found between brain tissues and skull bone was found fractured in three places. x 6 cm. and abrasions of size 1.5 cm. x 1.4 cm.; (v) Multiple contusion over right side back of chest in middle area of size 21 cm. x 11 cm. overlapping each other." 22. On opening body, a clotted blood was found between brain tissues and skull bone was found fractured in three places. The panel of doctors then prepared a slide of vaginal swab for chemical examination. 23. As per post-mortem report, all injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and blunt object and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. They opined that the death was due to shock on account of multiple injuries, haemorrhage and injury to brain. Duration from time of post-mortem was 24-72 hrs. The said post-mortem report (Ex.P/5) was written and signed by both the doctors. 24. M. L. Sharma (PW-11), Inspector/In-charge of the Police Station Morar deposed that on 5th June 2000 at about 10:50 p.m., during inquiry into Marg No. 37/2000 lodged at the police station, he wrote first information report (Ex.P/13) and registered Crime No. 356/2000 for offence under section 302/201 of Indian Penal Code against accused Bhagwandas. On 7th June 2000, he prepared the spot map (Ex.P/7) of the place, i.e, house of accused where the incident occurred. He made an inquiry about the incident from accused under custody and prepared the memorandum (Ex.P/14). Thereafter he seized the instruments one leg of wooden bed, one Axe and one wooden stick by seizure memo (Ex.P/6) and also seized the blood stained and simple mud. He also seized some portion of wall plaster after scrabbling it from the walls. He recorded the case diary statements of the witnesses related to the incident. After that, the seized articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Gwalior for their chemical examination. He received the Chemical Examiner Report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Gwalior. A bare perusal of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory marked as Ex.P/16 shows that the cloth strips recovered from the house of the accused marked as Art. A/1 to A/5, and wearing clothes belonging to accused marked as Articles B/2 to B/4, including other articles such as G/1-plate of iron, G/2-wooden leg of the bed, G/4-wooden stick were soaked with human blood. 25. 25. Now, in the light of the principles governing the case based on the circumstantial evidence, this Court proposes to consider the circumstances relied upon and proved by the evidence of the prosecution. "(i) That, Smt. Rekha who was working as police constable at Bhind came to Gwalior and stayed for a while at her residence at Bhahodapur with her sister-in-law (Bhabhi), named Smt. Shiksha Raje and at about 2:30- 3:00 in the noon, accused Bhagwandas also reached at her residence. (ii) That, on that very day, there were hot discussions made between the accused and deceased on return of money, which the deceased had given to the accused at earlier point of time for securing the job. Thereafter, the deceased after wearing the blue coloured salwar suit left the place of her residence at about 3:30 p.m. with accused Bhagwandas after informing that she is going with Bhagwandas. (iii) That, in the evidence of the daughter, Ujala (PW-10) it is stated that accused Bhagwandas, usually came to meet her mother. She stated on 3rd June, in the noon, after taking her salary and other articles in a red coloured trip bag, after informing this witness that she is going to purchase the clothes for her brother and also to meet accused Bhagwandas, the deceased left her house for Gwalior where from she did not return back home and on next day, some person informed that the dead body of her mother is traced out in Gwalior. (iv) That, till her entry in the house of the accused, the deceased was seen alive by a witness Gyasiram (PW-9), who at the relevant time was going towards the shop of Shahid and had an occasion to see the deceased getting down from an auto-rickshaw. Next day, he came to know that some woman was murdered and her dead-body was lying in a watercourse. (v) That, witness Bhogiram son of Bhudharam (PW-14) at about 1:00 a.m., in night, when he was coming after watching cinema, had seen the accused Bhagwandas with a heavy luggage (cloth packet) on a carrier of his cycle going towards Tikoniya Morar. The alleged cycle was taken by the accused from Jewanlal (PW-1) for taking his ailing wife to the hospital for treatment. The alleged cycle was taken by the accused from Jewanlal (PW-1) for taking his ailing wife to the hospital for treatment. Though, witness Jewanlal (PW-1) turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the fact cannot be denied that this alleged cycle was seized during investigation by seizure memo (Ex.P/1), which bears the signature of said Jewanlal (PW-1). (v) That, the motive behind the incident was that the accused was insisting to compromise in the pending criminal case lodged against him for sexual harassment which was not accepted by the deceased. It was also stated in the evidence by the mother of the deceased that the accused proposed her daughter for Court marriage at her residence which she opposed. So, the motive is well supported by the witnesses Pappu (PW-4), brother, Shiksha Raje (PW-5), sister-in-law, Kusumlata Bhatnagar (PW-7), mother as well as Ujala PW-10), daughter of the deceased." 26. Regarding the point of recovery of the incriminating articles used in the crime, learned counsel for the accused has raised serious doubt. He contended that taking as a whole the prosecution evidence, it cannot be stated that prosecution succeeded beyond any shadow of doubt to prove the charges brought against the accused-appellant and hence, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and on that score, the learned trial Judge ought to have recorded judgment of acquittal. 27. On perusal of the record, we have found that appellant during his custody with the police led the police officer for the purpose of recovery and it was the appellant who brought out the incriminating articles marked as G/1,G/2 and G/3, (Iron plate, wooden leg of the bed and Axe) in presence of the two independent witnesses and one of such independent witnesses, namely, Kishore Kumar Sharma (PW-8) deposed before the Court about the manner of recovery and the act of seizure and there is no scope of any doubt. The Medical Officer Dr. S. S. Jadon, who was examined as PW-6 has deposed in Court that the injuries which caused the death of the victim were the result of the use of the object which was recovered from the possession of the appellant and this testimony of the doctor corroborates and supports the testimony of Pappu @ Devendra (PW-4), Shiksha Raje (PW-5) and Kusumlata Bhatnagar (PW-7). We have carefully examined the cross-examination of all the material witnesses and we hold that appellant did not succeed in the least to bring out anything during cross-examination which would affect the credibility of any of the material witnesses who deposed in support of the prosecution case. After thus subjecting the evidence of the witnesses so examined by the prosecution to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, their evidence can be accepted being passed the test of credibility. Hence, in our opinion, there is ample evidence on record to show that accused did everything to murder the deceased. 28. Accordingly we conclude that the chain in the case at hand is complete and the circumstances proved by the prosecution are sufficient to point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness. 29. To get strengthen our view, it would be relevant to take assistance from the decision of Hon. the Apex Court rendered in the case of G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914 , wherein it has been held :- "The evidence tendered in a Court of law is either direct or circumstantial. Evidence is said to be direct if it consists of an eye-witness account of the facts in issue in a criminal case. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is not derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do not". In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do not". In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the Court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court." 30. Further in the case of Brijesh Mavi vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 45 , at page 52 it has been held :- "The prosecution, in the absence of any direct evidence, has sought to build up its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime." 31. Thus, from our above discussions, it would be clear that all the circumstances have been proved in this case including that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together while going to the house of the accused some time around evening and till that time, she was seen alive. Next day, her dead-body was found lying in the watercourse which was noticed by Jaswant (PW-13). In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 , the onus was on the accused to explain the reason as to what happened to deceased after they were together seen alive, but unfortunately, he has failed to render the same. Therefore, the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible and this is a circumstance which points towards the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible and this is a circumstance which points towards the guilt of the accused. Even with regard to the alleged motive, there is ample evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of it. Thus, the motive as appears in the present case is sufficient to hold conviction of accused/appellant for causing murder of Rekha and we find that the prosecution in this manner has successfully proved the alleged motive for commission of murder. 32. For the reasons aforesaid, having confirmed the findings of the learned Special Judge, we find that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death. Since, in a criminal trial, the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the same having been found established in the present case, we are not disturbing the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above findings given by us, the accused is not required to be given the benefit of doubt. 33. The appeal is accordingly dismissed having found no merit. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remainder of his impugned sentences. 34. A copy of this judgment be dispatched to the learned trial Court for necessary compliance along with the record of the case.