JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which to undergo RI for six months, RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of which to undergo RI for three months and RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo RI for one month, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 12/05/2014, in Sessions Case No. 471 of 2009, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. This court by its order dated 3/9/2014, while hearing Criminal Application No. 896 of 2014, filed by the appellant, seeking his enlargement on bail, acceded to the request of the appellant for expediting the hearing of the appeal and accordingly directed that a formal paper book be dispensed with as the skeleton paper book had been filed by the appellant and directed that the appeal be added to the final hearing board on 11/9/2014 along with record and proceedings. Accordingly, this appeal was listed for final hearing before this court and the appeal was heard. 2. Facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may be stated thus:- PW 19 - Police Head Constable Dileep Londhe, who was attached to the Warje Malwadi Police Station and was on duty on 7/1/2009 at the NDA Police Chowky, recorded the missing report filed by one Hari Shankar Shinde regarding missing of Nivrutti Kondiba Ingale since 6/1/2009. Said report was reduced into writing at Exh. 74. On the basis of the missing report, an occurrence report was prepared at Exh. 75 and the occurrence report was then forwarded to the Senior Police Inspector of the Warje Malwadi Police Station. The report forwarding the missing complaint and the occurrence report is at Exh. 76. The investigation of the said missing report was entrusted to PW 20 - PSI Avinash Bhosale. PW 20 - PSI Avinash Bhosale, who was attached to the NDA Police Chowky under the Warje Malwadi Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation of Missing Report No. 3 of 2009 on 8/1/2009. 76. The investigation of the said missing report was entrusted to PW 20 - PSI Avinash Bhosale. PW 20 - PSI Avinash Bhosale, who was attached to the NDA Police Chowky under the Warje Malwadi Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation of Missing Report No. 3 of 2009 on 8/1/2009. He had accordingly formed police party for tracing the whereabouts of the missing person Nivrutti Ingale. Search was taken at the premises of the friends and relatives as well as the residence of the missing person Nivrutti Ingale. However, despite diligent search, the whereabouts of the missing person were not found. PW 20 - PSI Bhosale was taking search of Nivrutti till 19/1/2009. Further investigation was thereafter handed over to PSI Ramdas Shelke. PW 21 - PSI Ramdas Shelke, who was attached to the Warje Malwadi Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation of Missing Report No. 3 of 2009, which was being investigated by PW 20 - PSI Bhosale. After taking over the investigation, PW 21 - PSI Shelke addressed a communication to the Idea Cellular Company, requesting for call details of the mobile of the missing person Nivrutti Ingale and the appellant Ganesh Kindre. The letter was routed through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deccan Division, Pune. Said letter is at Exh. 55. The CDRs of the two mobiles, which the appellant was using, were called for. The CDRs of the mobile phone of the missing person Nivrutti Ingale was also called for by a letter at Exh. 60. The CDRs were received on 21/1/2009. The appellant was arrested on 23/1/2009 by PI Ghadge. During interrogation, on the night of 23/1/2009, the appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place where the dead body of deceased Nivrutti Ingale @ Aba Ingale was burnt on 6/1/2009 in the Tavandi Ghat. The appellant also expressed his willingness to point out the place where he had abandoned the car and had thrown the number-plates. A memorandum to that effect was recorded in the presence of panchas at Exh. 46. A private vehicle was arranged for as the Government vehicle was not available and the appellant led the police and the panchas towards Kolhapur and took them to the Tavandi Ghat by Bangalore Highway. Tavandi Ghat is a little ahead of village Nipani and is at a distance of 275 kilometers from Pune. 46. A private vehicle was arranged for as the Government vehicle was not available and the appellant led the police and the panchas towards Kolhapur and took them to the Tavandi Ghat by Bangalore Highway. Tavandi Ghat is a little ahead of village Nipani and is at a distance of 275 kilometers from Pune. The appellant asked the police to stop the vehicle near a stream in the Tavandi Ghat and led the police and the panchas to a distance of about 100 to 150 ft. in the forest area and pointed the place where some bones and ash were found. The bones and the ash, which included parts of partly burnt mobile, pant buckle and half partly burnt piece of cloth and a stone which was blackened by oil. The said articles were seized by drawing a panchanama. The appellant then led the police and the panchas towards Kolhapur at a place near the Jenkston Complex. The appellant led the police and the panchas near the railway compound wall and produced one number-plates which was lying in the bushes near the compound wall. The appellant also produced other articles from that place. The bushes from where the appellant produced the number-plates were of a height of 2 to 3 ft. The appellant had also produced from the bushes a small cushion containing photograph of the footwear of Amma Bhagwan, a scarf having picture of goddess and a match box of ATM company. The said articles, including the number-plates were seized under the panchanama at Exh. 47. Further investigation was thereafter handed over to PW 22 - PI Sunil Gharge. PW 22 - PI Sunil Gharge, who was also attached to the Warje Malwadi Police Station recorded the report of PW 2 - Tukaram Ingale at Exh. 27 alleging that the appellant had abducted Aba Ingale. On the basis of the said report, an offence vide Crime No. 27 of 2009 was registered. An entry to that effect was taken in the station diary at Sr. No. 22 of 2009 and the offence which was registered was under Section 363 of the IPC. The printed proforma of the F.I.R. is at Exh. 28. After registration of the offence, PW 22 - PI Gharge took over the investigation of the Crime. An entry to that effect was taken in the station diary at Sr. No. 22 of 2009 and the offence which was registered was under Section 363 of the IPC. The printed proforma of the F.I.R. is at Exh. 28. After registration of the offence, PW 22 - PI Gharge took over the investigation of the Crime. It transpired that a missing complaint had already been filed at the police station, which was registered as Missing Complaint No. 3 of 2009. PW 22 - PI Gharge took possession of all the documents. The complainant - Haribhau Shinde, who had lodged the missing complaint had died on 27/1/2013 and the death certificate is at Exh. 82. A search for the appellant was taken at his house and at the premises of his relatives and friends, but the appellant could not be found. The appellant was not traceable till 22/1/2009. The search squad produced the appellant before PW 22 - PI Gharge on 23/1/2009. The appellant was accordingly arrested and an entry regarding his arrest was taken in the station diary. After arrest of the appellant, PW 21 - PSI Shelke was entrusted with the investigation and accordingly pursuant to the disclosure memorandum of the appellant, the number-plates, the skeleton bones and other articles came to be seized. Section 302 of the IPC came to be added. On 25/1/2009, PW 22-PI Gharge recorded the statements of PW 1 - Nivedita Ingale, PW 4 - Bharat Deshmukh, PW 7 - Ram Patil, PW 12 - Mayur Pokale and others. In the presence of panchas, search of the appellant was taken and two cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs written in the name of one A.S. Rokade and other articles were found. The said articles were seized under panchanama at Exh. 51. On the next day i.e. on 26/1/2009 statements of PW 3 - Amit Rokade and other witnesses were recorded. On 27/1/2009 the half burnt bones were referred to the B.J. Medical College for examination under letter at Exh. 85. A reply was received to the said letter at Exh. 64. On 28/1/2009 statements of PW 5 - Prakash Sutar and PW 6 - Iqbal Jalgar were recorded. A letter was addressed to the RTO seeking details of the Santro Car bearing Registration No. MH-12/DS 5454, which is at Exh. 86. The reply of the RTO is at Exh. 87. A reply was received to the said letter at Exh. 64. On 28/1/2009 statements of PW 5 - Prakash Sutar and PW 6 - Iqbal Jalgar were recorded. A letter was addressed to the RTO seeking details of the Santro Car bearing Registration No. MH-12/DS 5454, which is at Exh. 86. The reply of the RTO is at Exh. 87. On 17/3/2009 the half burnt bones were referred to the Chemical Analyzer for DNA test along with the blood samples of Alka Ingale and PW 1 - Nivedita under requisition at Exh. 88. The reply of the C.A. is at Exh. 89. On 25/3/2009, the other seized articles were referred to the C.A. under requisition at Exh. 90. The reply of the C.A. is at Exh. 91. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was filed. PW 15 - Dr. Yeshwant Kulkarni, who was attached to the B.J. Medical College i.e. the Sassoon Hospital, Pune as a Lecturer, received a letter on 27/1/2009 from the Police Inspector of the Warje Malwadi Police Station along with sealed packets. On opening the sealed packets, he found a single piece of bone which was partially burnt and was black in colour. On opening the other parcel, he noticed several pieces of partially burnt bones which were also black in colour. On examining the bones, he found the bones to be of lower end of the left humorous. The epiphyses of the bone were united and it was a human bone. On examining the bones, he also came to the conclusion that one of the bones was a humorous and other was femur bone. On examining these bones, the epiphyses of the bone were fused and were human bones. He, therefore, found that the bones were of a human being who was more than 18 years of age and accordingly issued his opinion dated 25/2/2009 at Exh. 64. The rough notes of the examination are at Exh. 65. 3. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 3, framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant vide his statement at Exh. 5 denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case, examined 22 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was of denial. 3, framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant vide his statement at Exh. 5 denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case, examined 22 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was of denial. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-stated. 4. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. The prosecution unfolds its case through the evidence of PW 1 - Nivedita, daughter of deceased Aba Ingale. PW 1 - Nivedita deposes that she was married on 18/5/2010 and prior to her marriage, she was residing in the house of deceased Aba Ingale, who was her father, along with her mother Alka and her step mother Suman. Deceased Nivrutti was popularly known as Aba and Nivedita was the only child of deceased Aba. Deceased Aba was running Ashirwad Mangal Karayalaya and a hotel known as "Chandni Bar" which was situated at a distance of about half kilometers from the house of Aba Ingale. Ashirwad Mangal Karayalaya was hardly at walking distance of one and half minutes from the bungalow of deceased Aba Ingale. According to PW 1 - Nivedita, PW 2 - Tukaram is her uncle who is also known as Tatya. Deceased Aba Ingale owned a Santro Car bearing Registration No. MH-12/DS 5454 and a mobile cell phone with number 9767728585. The Santro Car, however, was registered in the name of her step mother Suman. According to Nivedita, the appellant used to accompany deceased Aba as he was a friend of deceased Aba. The appellant was possessing two mobile cell phones, the numbers of which were saved in the memory of the mobile phone of Nivedita. After verifying the telephone numbers, Nivedita deposes that the cell numbers of the mobile phones of the appellant were (i) 9922521529 and (ii) 9767691503. The appellant was possessing two mobile cell phones, the numbers of which were saved in the memory of the mobile phone of Nivedita. After verifying the telephone numbers, Nivedita deposes that the cell numbers of the mobile phones of the appellant were (i) 9922521529 and (ii) 9767691503. According to Nivedita, deceased Aba Ingale used to leave the residence for attending hotel at about 9 a.m. and used to return home for lunch at about 12 noon or 12.30 p.m. After taking the lunch, deceased Aba used to leave for attending his other business and used to return home in the evening between 7 to 7.30 p.m. Deceased Aba was suffering from ailment of the kidney and was required to undergo dialysis twice a week. Sometimes mother of Nivedita used to accompany deceased Aba Ingale and on some occasions appellant used to accompany deceased Aba Ingale. On 5/1/2009, mother and step mother of Nivedita had been on the pilgrimage to Kashi. PW 2 - Tukaram also went on the pilgrimage on the next day. On the date of the incident i.e. 6/1/2009 deceased Aba Ingale left his residence at about 8.30 to 9 a.m. and returned home for lunch at about 12 to 12.30 p.m. After his lunch, deceased Aba informed PW 1 - Nivedita that he was going along with the appellant for bringing money. Nivedita accordingly accompanied deceased Aba till the gate and saw him off. The Santro Car of deceased Aba was being driven by the appellant, while deceased Aba was sitting besides the driver's seat. 6. Aba, however, did not return home till about 7.30 p.m. and Nivedita attempted to contact the cell number of deceased Aba, but the mobile phone of Aba was switched off. Nivedita then tried to contact the mobile cell number of the appellant but the appellant, but the appellant did not pick up the phone. Nivedita, therefore, called the appellant on his other cell number i.e. 9822571675, but in vain. The mobile of deceased Aba was indicating that it was switched off. She waited for Aba to return home till mid-night, but since Aba did not return home, she contacted her uncle PW 2 - Tukaram. She accordingly informed Tukaram that Aba had left, accompanied by the appellant and had not returned home. Tukaram put the anxiety of Nivedita at rest by telling her that deceased Aba may have gone for worship. She waited for Aba to return home till mid-night, but since Aba did not return home, she contacted her uncle PW 2 - Tukaram. She accordingly informed Tukaram that Aba had left, accompanied by the appellant and had not returned home. Tukaram put the anxiety of Nivedita at rest by telling her that deceased Aba may have gone for worship. Tukaram at that time was in Delhi, while Nivedita was alone present in the house. Nivedita again contacted PW 2-Tukaram at about 5 to 5.30 a.m. and informed him that Aba had not returned home. Tukaram, therefore, advised Nivedita to lodge a report with the police. Nivedita accordingly called her maternal uncle Haribhau Shinde and requested him to lodge a report at the police out-post. Accordingly Haribhau Shinde lodged his report. The appellant had come to the house of Aba in the morning at about 9 to 9.30 a.m. Nivedita inquired from the appellant regarding the whereabouts of deceased Aba. On Nivedita reminding him that he had accompanied Aba, the appellant informed Nivedita that he had been with Aba for some time at the hotel and thereafter the appellant had left for attending his construction work and, therefore, had no knowledge regarding the whereabouts of Aba. Nivedita then met PW 9 - Subhash Choudhary, her cousin-in-law, who informed Nivedita that he had seen deceased Aba along with the appellant in the Santro Car going towards Katraj in the afternoon. On 21/1/2009 Nivedita received a telephone call from the Hyundai Show Room a well as from the Kolhapur Police that the Santro Car matching the description of the car of deceased Aba was found at Kolhapur and was kept near the police station. Nivedita accordingly informed her cousin who went to Kolhapur and identified the car. Hearing the news, Nivedita, who was deeply disturbed, was indisposed and was hospitalized from 21/1/2009 till 25/1/2009. Nivedita, in response to the question from the Special Public Prosecutor, has deposed that deceased Aba, while leaving for work used to carry with him a scarf with the picture of a goddess. She has accordingly identified the scarf, which is Article P-1. In respect of the photographs of the footwear of Amma Bhagwan, Nivedita deposes that the said Article P-2 used to be kept in the car. She has also identified the broken number plates, Article P-3. 7. She has accordingly identified the scarf, which is Article P-1. In respect of the photographs of the footwear of Amma Bhagwan, Nivedita deposes that the said Article P-2 used to be kept in the car. She has also identified the broken number plates, Article P-3. 7. In cross-examination, she has admitted that the appellant was acquainted with the deceased prior to the incident. She has also admitted that the marriage of the appellant was settled by deceased Aba. She has further admitted as correct that the appellant was a close friend of deceased Aba. She has further admitted as correct that about three years prior to the incident, deceased was afflicted with the ailment of the kidney. She has further admitted that the deceased used to call the appellant in case of any medical emergency. She has further admitted that the appellant was dealing in sale and purchase of immoveable property and was also engaged in a construction activity. She has also admitted as correct that there were regular monetary transactions between the deceased and the appellant. She has also admitted as correct that the relations between the deceased and the appellant were cordial. She has also admitted as correct that the deceased, apart from owning Ashirwad Mangal Karayalaya, Chandni Hotel and Bar, was also owner of open plots in Pune. She has admitted that complainant Tukaram Ingale was cousin of deceased Aba. An admission is then elicited that the deceased was so good nature that he would not peruse people for refund of the money advanced to them. An admission is also elicited that due to health problem, deceased Aba was not driving the vehicle but he had appointed one Gulab Hake as driver for driving the Santro car. She has further admitted as correct that on the day of the incident, Gulab Hake was on duty. She has further admitted as correct that her statement was recorded by the police on 25/1/2009 and prior to that she had not contacted the police. She has also admitted as correct that in her statement she had made no reference to the mobile numbers of the appellant. She has admitted that one Nandu Rokade was a friend of Tukar Ingale. An admission is also elicited that deceased Aba had financially aided Tukaram Ingale. She has also admitted as correct that in her statement she had made no reference to the mobile numbers of the appellant. She has admitted that one Nandu Rokade was a friend of Tukar Ingale. An admission is also elicited that deceased Aba had financially aided Tukaram Ingale. An omission is elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that deceased Aba, while leaving the home, used to take scarf (Article P-1) with him. An omission is also elicited that she had not stated that Article P-2, a photograph of the footwear of lord Amma Bhagwan used to be kept in the car. An omission is also elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that her uncle Tukaram Ingale had gone to Kolhapur for verifying the car, which was found abandoned. In re-examination, she has admitted that when deceased Aba left the home on the date of the incident, deceased Aba and the appellant were the only persons travelling in the Santro car. An admission is also elicited in the re-examination that as she was frightened, she had asked her uncle PW 2 - Tukaram Ingale to lodge the report at the police station. In further cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, an omission is elicited that she had not stated in her previous statement that she had telephoned Shri Zore to inquire if deceased Aba attended the function. 8. Prosecution has examined PW 9 - Subhash Chaudhary, who deposes that he knew deceased Aba Ingale as deceased Aba was his uncle-in-law. He has also deposed that deceased Aba was using a Santro car bearing Registration No. MH-12/DS 5454 and PW 9 - Subhash was using a Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No. MH-12/CY 765. He has also deposed that he knew the appellant as the appellant used to frequently come to the house of deceased Aba Ingale. In respect of the incident, PW 9 - Subhash deposes that on 6/1/2009 between 12/30 to 1.30 p.m. he was travelling in his Zen car towards Katraj from Warje. One car had overtaken his car and he had seen that the said car was being driven by deceased Aba Ingale and the appellant was sitting besides the driver's seat in the said car. One car had overtaken his car and he had seen that the said car was being driven by deceased Aba Ingale and the appellant was sitting besides the driver's seat in the said car. He has also admitted that his car and the car of deceased Aba Ingale were going in the same direction i.e. towards Satara-Kolhapur from the highway. He has admitted that he learnt that deceased Aba Ingale was missing on 9/1/2009. He has admitted that on learning that deceased Aba Ingale was missing, he had gone to his house and had informed the wife of deceased Aba Ingale that he had seen deceased Aba on 6/1/2009 in the company of the appellant. He has admitted that on 7/1/2009, he had gone to Pandharpur and had returned on 8/1/2009. He has admitted that he had gone to the house of deceased Aba on 9/1/2009 as he wanted to give the "prasad" to them. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the family of deceased Aba Ingale was closely related to him and, therefore, he used to go to their house frequently. He has admitted that there was heavy traffic near Katraj by-pass on the Mumbai Bangalore Highway. He has also admitted that the highway was a four lane highway. He has admitted that the Santro car of deceased Aba Ingale was an air-condition car. He has further admitted that it was not necessary that every time the windows of the car are rolled up while driving the vehicle. He has admitted that his statement was recorded on 25/1/2009. An omission has been elicited that he had not stated that the car of Aba Ingale overtook his car. The witness has volunteered that he had overtaken the car of Aba Ingale. He has admitted that he was aware that deceased Aba Ingale was suffering from various ailments and was not aware if Aba Ingale had appointed a driver. He has also admitted as correct that deceased Aba Ingale was required to undergo dialysis twice a week. He has further admitted as correct that he was aware that PW 2 - Tukaram had gone on a pilgrimage to Kashi along with the wives of deceased Aba Ingale. He has admitted as correct that prior to 9/1/2009, he had not gone to the house nor had he met the brother-in-law or the daughter of deceased Aba Ingale. He has further admitted as correct that he was aware that PW 2 - Tukaram had gone on a pilgrimage to Kashi along with the wives of deceased Aba Ingale. He has admitted as correct that prior to 9/1/2009, he had not gone to the house nor had he met the brother-in-law or the daughter of deceased Aba Ingale. The explanation given by the witness is that he could not go since he had gone to Pandharpur. He has further denied that on account of illness, Aba Ingale had never driven the car. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the house of Aba Ingale on 9/1/2009 and had informed the family members of deceased Aba that he had seen Aba and the appellant in the car on 6/1/2009. 9. Prosecution has examined PW 5 - Prakash Sutar, the owner of garage by name "Autonovo Garage". According to PW 5 - Prakash his garage is in Kolhapur and he had established the garage about 10 years prior to the incident. He along with his partner Ikbal Noormohamad Jalgar was running the said garage. According to PW 5 - Prakash, on 6/1/2009, at about 8.30 p.m. while he was about to close the garage, one Santro car came to his garage. One person alighted from the car and asked for a screw driver for tightening the screws of the number-plates. PW 5 - Prakash inquired from that person if Prakash should tighten the screws of number-plates, but the said person told Prakash that he would do it himself. Prakash pointed out the screw driver to him and the said person accordingly took the screw driver and returned the same after about five minutes. Prakash has deposed that he could identify the person who had come to his garage and had borrowed the screw driver. PW 5 - Prakash has identified the appellant to be the same person who had borrowed the screw driver. 10. In cross-examination, he has admitted that his statement was recorded on 28/1/2009. He has also admitted that on 28/1/2009, the police had come to his garage, accompanied by one person and the police had informed him that the said person had borrowed the screw driver from Prakash. 11. 10. In cross-examination, he has admitted that his statement was recorded on 28/1/2009. He has also admitted that on 28/1/2009, the police had come to his garage, accompanied by one person and the police had informed him that the said person had borrowed the screw driver from Prakash. 11. Prosecution has examined PW 6 - Ikbal, the partner of PW 5 - Prakash, who also deposes on similar lines as that of PW 5 - Prakash. He has also identified the appellant to be the same person who had borrowed the screw driver. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the police had recorded his statement as well as the statement of his partner PW 5 - Prakash in the garage. He has also admitted that the police had brought the appellant along with them to the garage. No reliance whatsoever, in our opinion, can be placed on the testimony of PW 5 - Prakash and PW 6 - Ikbal Noormohammad Jalgar and the identification of the appellant as the same person who had borrowed the screw driver, as both these witnesses had seen the appellant on 28/1/2009 when their statements were recorded. Thus the identification of the appellant in the court as the person who had borrowed the screw driver would be vitiated. In any event, the borrowing of the screw driver was not an event which would be impressed on the omissions of these witnesses so as to enable to recall the feature of the person who had come to their garage for borrowing the screw driver. No reliance, therefore, can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses. 12. Prosecution has examined PW 4 - Bharat Deshmukh, who deposes that since 2007 he was employed as a driver by PW 2 - Tukaram Ingale, cousin of deceased Aba Ingale. Bharat deposes that he knew the appellant as he was a friend of deceased Aba. PW 4 - Bharat also deposes that he knew PW 3 - Nandu Rokade, a relative of deceased Aba. He further deposes that deceased Aba had advanced Rs. 25 lacs from time to time to the appellant through PW 3 - Nandu Rokade. Bharat claims that this was informed to him by deceased Aba. PW 4 - Bharat also deposes that he knew PW 3 - Nandu Rokade, a relative of deceased Aba. He further deposes that deceased Aba had advanced Rs. 25 lacs from time to time to the appellant through PW 3 - Nandu Rokade. Bharat claims that this was informed to him by deceased Aba. In respect of the incident, PW 4 - Bharat deposes that on 6/1/2009, at about 10.15 a.m. he had received a telephone call from deceased Aba, who had called him immediately for accompanying him and the appellant for bringing money from the appellant. In response to the said telephone call, PW 4 - Bharat went to the house of deceased Aba sometime after 12.30 p.m. PW 1 - Nivedita was present in the house and he had not seen deceased Aba in the house. On an inquiry being made by PW 4 - Bharat with PW 1 - Nivedita, Nivedita informed him that deceased Aba had gone along with the appellant in the Santro car. Bharat thereafter telephoned deceased Aba, but the mobile as switched off. Bharat had thereafter telephoned the appellant but the appellant did not receive the call. Bharat deposes that he had received a telephone from Nivedita, who had informed him that deceased Aba had not returned home and was asked Bharat to go to the house of the appellant. Bharat, therefore, along with one Ram Patil, employee of Chandni Wine Shop had gone to the residence of the appellant but the appellant was not present at his residence. Brother of the appellant by name Prakash as present, who had informed them that Prakash had received a telephone call from the appellant at 9 p.m. intimating Prakash that the appellant would be returning home within half an hour. The appellant, however, did not return home and, therefore, PW 4 - Bharat and PW 7 - Ram Patil returned home. PW 4 - Bharat deposes that thereafter he had telephoned PW 3 - Nandu Rokade as to whether deceased Aba had gone to the Sonal Mangal Karayalaya for attending the naming ceremony, but was informed that deceased Aba had not attended the said function. PW 4 - Bharat deposes that thereafter he had telephoned PW 3 - Nandu Rokade as to whether deceased Aba had gone to the Sonal Mangal Karayalaya for attending the naming ceremony, but was informed that deceased Aba had not attended the said function. PW 4 - Bharat, accompanied by Ram, had again gone to the house of the appellant on the next day at about 9 a.m. The appellant was present at his residence and on inquiry, the appellant had informed them that he had not accompanied deceased Aba and was not knowing the whereabouts of Aba. Bharat then deposes that he was informed that the Santro Car had been found and he had accompanied his employer, PW 2 - Tukaram, to Kolhapur and was seen the said car and had noticed that there were no number-plates on the car. The identification of the car was done on the basis of the engine number. 13. In cross-examination, he has admitted as correct that on 6/1/2009, PW 2 - Tukaram, had gone to Varanasi by flight. He has also admitted as correct that deceased Aba had employed one driver for driving his car. PW 4 - Bharat, however, volunteered that sometimes deceased Aba used to call him for driving the car. An omission is elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that he had informed PW 1 - Nivedita that the appellant had not returned home. An omission is also elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that on 6/1/2009 at about 10.30 p.m. he had telephoned PW 3 - Nandu to inquire if deceased Aba had attended the naming ceremony. An omission is also elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that they had taken the papers of the Santro car when they had gone to Kolhapur for identifying the car. 14. Prosecution has also examined PW 7 - Ram Patil, who had employed as Supervisor in the Chandni Bar which was owned by deceased Aba Ingale. PW 7 - Ram deposes that he knew the appellant as he was a friend of deceased Aba. According to Ram, the relations between the appellant and Aba Ingale were cordial. 14. Prosecution has also examined PW 7 - Ram Patil, who had employed as Supervisor in the Chandni Bar which was owned by deceased Aba Ingale. PW 7 - Ram deposes that he knew the appellant as he was a friend of deceased Aba. According to Ram, the relations between the appellant and Aba Ingale were cordial. In respect of the incident, PW 7 - Ram deposes that on 6/1/2009 he had gone to attend his duty at the Chandni Bar at about 9.30 a.m. At about 10 a.m. deceased Aba came to the hotel and the appellant also came there. The appellant and deceased Aba were conversed with each other in the hotel till about 12 to 12.30 p.m. Deceased Aba thereafter asked PW 7 - Ram to deposit certain money in the bank and accordingly PW 7 - Ram went to the bank for depositing the amount. He returned back to the Chandni Bar after about 10 to 15 minutes and learnt that deceased Aba and the appellant had gone together in the white Santro car. He further deposes that in the evening he received a telephone from PW 1 - Nivedita, who informed him that deceased Aba had not returned home and, therefore, asked him to go to the house of the appellant. PW 7 - Ram accordingly to the house of the appellant, accompanied by PW 4 - Bharat. Ram deposes that neither deceased Aba nor the appellant were present there, but the brother of the appellant by name Prakash informed them that the appellant was not present in the house and would return at about 9.50 p.m. as per the telephone call received from the appellant. Ram, therefore, informed Prakash that they would return within half an hour. However, neither the appellant nor deceased Aba had returned home. On the next day in the morning PW 7 - Ram and PW 4 - Bharat had gone to the house of the appellant and had inquired from him as to where deceased Aba was, but the appellant informed them that he did not know the whereabouts of deceased Aba as he had not accompanied deceased Aba. 15. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had seen the appellant since he was employed as a Supervisor in the Chandni Bar. He has admitted that the appellant was a friend of deceased Aba. 15. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had seen the appellant since he was employed as a Supervisor in the Chandni Bar. He has admitted that the appellant was a friend of deceased Aba. He has admitted as correct that the appellant used to frequently come for meeting deceased Aba as they were friends. He has admitted that he does not know if there were financial dealings between Aba and the appellant. He has admitted in the cross-examination that there were some transactions of money lending between deceased Aba and the appellant which had taken place in his presence. He has admitted that frequently deceased Aba used to lend money to the appellant. He has admitted that his statement was recorded on 25/1/2009. 16. Prosecution has examined PW 3 - Nandu Rokade, who despoes that he knew deceased Aba who was the maternal uncle of his wife. According to PW 3 - Nandu, about 3 to 4 months prior to the incident, he had received a telephone call from Aba informing Nandu that 10 lacs rupees be given to the appellant. Deceased Aba, however, informed Nandu that the said transaction should be in the name of PW 3 - Nandu and accordingly Nandu received Rs. 10 lacs and on the next day he had handed over Rs. 10 lacs to the appellant. After about a month, deceased Aba again informed him that Rs. 10 lacs should be paid to the appellant in the same manner and the appellant would issue cheque in the name of Nandu which Nandu should accept. Accordingly deceased Aba handed over Rs. 10 lacs to PW 3 - Nandu and Nandu, in turn, then handed over Rs. 10 lacs to the appellant. The appellant had issued two cheques, each for Rs. 5 lacs. On 3/1/2009, Nandu had received a telephone call from deceased Aba at about 10 to 10.30 a.m. and Aba informed him that the appellant would be making payment within two days and, therefore, the cheques issued by the appellant should be sent to the shop of deceased Aba. PW 3 - Nandu, however, could not spare time on that day and, therefore, could not delivered the cheques to deceased Aba. PW 3 - Nandu, however, could not spare time on that day and, therefore, could not delivered the cheques to deceased Aba. On the next day, deceased Aba and the appellant talked with Nandu on telephone and deceased Aba instructed Nandu to hand over the cheques to deceased Aba as the appellant would be making the payment. The appellant had informed Nandu that the appellant required the cheques as he wanted to hand over the said cheques to other person. Nandu informed the appellant that the cheques had been drawn in his name and how would the appellant hand over the cheques to someone else. The appellant informed Nandu that he would erase the name of Nandu and would then issue the cheques to someone else. Nandu, therefore, asked the appellant to come to his residence and receive the cheques. On the same day, the appellant had come to the residence of Nandu and took both the cheques from the wife of Nandu. The appellant, however, had not made any payment before taking away the cheques. According to Nandu, on 6/1/2009, at about 8 p.m. he had gone to Sonal Mangal Karayalaya for attending naming ceremony and was present in the Mangal Karayalaya till about 10 p.m. but deceased Aba did not attend the function. At about 10.30 p.m. Nandu had received a telephone call from PW 4 - Bharat, inquiring if Aba had attended the ceremony and Nandu had informed PW 4 - Bharat that Aba had not attended the ceremony. 17. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the appellant was a close friend of deceased Aba. He has admitted that his statement was recorded on 26/1/2009. He has also admitted that his statement was recorded on 18/1/2009. He has admitted that he was unable to state the cheque numbers of the cheques issued by the appellant, nor could he recollect the name of the bank on which they were drawn. 18. Prosecution has examined PW 2 - Tukaram, cousin of deceased Aba, who deposes that he knew the appellant as he was his friend as well as friend of deceased Aba. He has further deposed that the appellant used to frequently asked for hand loan from deceased Aba for purchasing immoveable property as the appellant was also engaged in construction. Tukaram further deposes that deceased Aba had advanced a hand loan of Rs. He has further deposed that the appellant used to frequently asked for hand loan from deceased Aba for purchasing immoveable property as the appellant was also engaged in construction. Tukaram further deposes that deceased Aba had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 25 lacs to the appellant through PW 3 - Nandu, but the appellant had not returned the said amount to deceased Aba. He then deposes that on 5/1/2009, the wives of deceased Aba had gone for attending a pilgrimage at Kashi and he had gone to attend the pilgrimage on 6/1/2009. He has also deposed that he could not go on 5/1/2009 as he was suffering from cold and fever. According to Tukaram, he had asked the appellant, if the appellant wanted to accompany Tukaram for attending the pilgrimage but the appellant had declined. On 6/1/2009 at about mid-night he had received a call from PW 1 - Nivedita, who informed him that deceased Aba had left for bringing money at about 12 noon to 12.30 p.m. by Santro car along with the appellant but had not returned home. Nivedita also informed him that she had attempted to contact deceased Aba on the phone but his mobile was switched off and the appellant was not answering the call. On 7/1/2009 at about 5 p.m. he had received a telephone call from Nivedita who had informed him that Aba had still not returned. On 8/1/2009, therefore, PW 2 - Tukaram along with wives of deceased Aba returned back to Pune by flight. On returning back, he rushed to Chandni Bar and contacted PW 7 - Ram Patil and the other employees. He had inquired from Gulab Hake, the driver, who had been appointed by deceased Aba and had also inquired from PW 4 - Bharat. On 9/1/2009 at about 9.30 to 10 p.m. he had called the appellant to the Chandni Bar and the appellant had accordingly came there. He made inquiry with the appellant regarding the whereabouts of deceased Aba. The appellant informed him that he was with Aba till about 12 to 12.30 p.m. on 6/1/2009 and the appellant had then left for Mumbai and had not seen deceased Aba. On 21/1/2009, he learnt from PW 1 - Nivedita that the Santro car belonging to deceased Aba had been found by the police at Kolhapur. The appellant informed him that he was with Aba till about 12 to 12.30 p.m. on 6/1/2009 and the appellant had then left for Mumbai and had not seen deceased Aba. On 21/1/2009, he learnt from PW 1 - Nivedita that the Santro car belonging to deceased Aba had been found by the police at Kolhapur. He had accordingly taken the documents of the car and had gone to Kolhapur. Number-plates of the car were missing and the car was identified on the basis of the chassis number of the car. On returning back to Pune on 22/1/2009, PW 2 - Tukaram lodged his report at Exh. 27. The printed proforma of the F.I.R. is at Exh. 28. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his report at Exh. 27 that he had intended to go on pilgrimage on 5/1/2009 but could not do so on account of ill-health. An omission is elicited that he had not stated in his report at Exh. 27 that PW 1 - Nivdedita had informed him that even the appellant was not answering her calls. Certain omissions had been elicited as to the details of what was informed to him by the employees of the Chandni Bar as well as by the appellant about the appellant being present in the Bar along with deceased Aba till about 12 to 12.30 p.m. An omission is elicited that he had not stated in his report that he had taken the photo copy set of the documents along with him when he had gone to Kolhapur. He has admitted that he had many transactions with deceased Aba pertaining to development of various sites. 19. Prosecution has examined PW 8 - Yogesh Shinde, a panch to the recovery. PW 8 - Yogesh deposes that on 23/1/2009 when he was near the Warje Malwadi Police Station, one police official stopped him and told him that they had arrested one accused and asked PW 8 - Yogesh if he was willing to act as a panch. On PW 8 - Yogesh consenting to act as a panch, the police official took him to the Warje Malwadi Police Station. Another panch was also present there, who was introduced to PW 8 - Yogesh. PSI then introduced the panch to the accused. On PW 8 - Yogesh consenting to act as a panch, the police official took him to the Warje Malwadi Police Station. Another panch was also present there, who was introduced to PW 8 - Yogesh. PSI then introduced the panch to the accused. He has identified the accused to be the appellant who was present in the court. The appellant then informed the panch witnesses about about his willingness to point out the place where the dead body of deceased Aba Ingale was burnt and also to point out the place where the number-plates of the Santro car were concealed. A memorandum was drawn at Exh. 46. The appellant then led the police and the panchas in a private vehicle as a Government vehicle was not available and informed the driver to drive upto Kolhapur. From Kolhapur, the appellant directed the vehicle to be taken to Kagal Nipani highway and then asked the driver to take U turn from the Kaveri Hotel and asked the vehicle to be stopped near a stream. After the vehicle was stopped, the appellant alighted and led the police and the panchas in the forest at a distance of 100 ft. and pointed out one place where burnt bones were found. Ash was also noticed. One half burnt mobile and the buckle of a belt was also seen as well as some burnt pieces of cloth of white coloured were also noticed. One blackened stone was also found there. The police accordingly seized all the articles and had taken sample of the ordinary mud as well as mud which was oil stained. According to PW 8 - Yogesh, the place was not visible from the highway. The appellant then led the police and the panchas towards Kolhapur at Tavandi Ghat which was at a distance of about 80 kms. from Kolhapur. The appellant then led them towards Ujdewadi and on nearing the Jemstan complex directed to stop the vehicle and then alighted from the vehicle. Accused led them towards the bushes near the wall of the railway line and produced the number-plates and other articles from the bushes. The accused had produced the number-plates of the Santro car as well as a photograph of Amma Bhagwan and one scarf as well as a match box. The aforesaid articles were seized under the panchanama at Exh. 47. 20. The accused had produced the number-plates of the Santro car as well as a photograph of Amma Bhagwan and one scarf as well as a match box. The aforesaid articles were seized under the panchanama at Exh. 47. 20. In cross-examination, an omission is elicited that the accused had not stated about concealing of the number-plates. He has also admitted that the place from where the number-plates were recovered by the accused was an open space having bushes and trees and was accessible to all. He has further admitted that he was acquainted with PW 2 - Tukaram, cousin of deceased Aba. 21. Prosecution has examined PW 10 - Vishal Damgude, a panch to the recovery of two cheques from the house of the accused and has also examined PW 11 - Sameer Zore on the point that deceased Aba had not attended the naming ceremony on 6/1/2009. 22. Prosecution has examined PW 12 - Mayur Pokhale, brother-in-law of the appellant, who deposes that mobile No. 9922521529 is in his name and he had given the mobile to the wife of the appellant. He has denied that the appellant was using the said mobile. He further deposes that on 11/1/2009 the appellant, his wife and his son along with PW 12 - Mayur had gone to Nipani and were returning at about 12 p.m. They had stopped in the Ghat for answering the call of nature. He has identified the handwriting of the appellant in the diary marked Article 18. In cross-examination, on behalf of the prosecution, he has admitted that the appellant was using the mobile No. 9922521529. In further cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, he has admitted that he had given the mobile to his sister i.e. the wife of the appellant and was not aware as to who was using the said mobile. 23. Prosecution has examined PW 13 - Sachin Shinde, the Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Company, who has produced the call details of mobile Nos. 9767691503 and 9922521529 from 1/1/2009 to 16/1/2009. He has also deposed that mobile No. 9767691503 was in the name of the appellant, while mobile No. 9922521529 was in the name of Mayur Pokhale. He has further deposed that there were no incoming or outgoing calls from mobile No. 9767691503 from 1/1/2009 to 16/1/2009. He has given the call details of the other mobile number at Exh. He has also deposed that mobile No. 9767691503 was in the name of the appellant, while mobile No. 9922521529 was in the name of Mayur Pokhale. He has further deposed that there were no incoming or outgoing calls from mobile No. 9767691503 from 1/1/2009 to 16/1/2009. He has given the call details of the other mobile number at Exh. 57 with the certificate at Exh. 58. He has also furnished the details of the tower location of the mobile of the appellant at Exh. 59. The calls details of mobile No. 9767728585 is at Exh. 60 and the details regarding the tower location of the said mobile is at Exh. 61. His attention was invited to Exh. 57, particularly to entries from Sr. No. 76 to 81 of the mobile of the appellant and he has admitted that these entries were from 10.54 a.m. to 12.28 a.m. from the tower location and has deposed that the mobile was within the area of Uttamnagar and Warje, Pune. He has further admitted that the last call was made on 6/1/2009 at 9.50 p.m. from the Datt Chowk at Satara. 24. Prosecution has examined PW 15 - Sadashiv Khot, who deposes that in January 2009, he was working as Shift in-charge of the Kognali Toll Naka. He further deposes that on 6/1/2009 when he was working in the C shift i.e. from 4 p.m. to 12 mid-night, at 5. 40 p.m. vehicle bearing No. MH-12/DS 5454 went in up direction on paying toll of Rs. 65/-. The said vehicle again made the return journey at 7.42 p.m. in the down direction. He has deposed about the necessary entries being taken in the computer and Exh. 7 being computer generated chart. He has also deposed that the vehicles going in the direction of Bangalore are termed as up direction, while the vehicles coming from the side of Bangalore and going towards Kolhapur are termed as down direction. 25. Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the evidence regarding last seen is extremely fragile and there is an enormous time gap between the deceased being seen alive in the company of the appellant and the recovery of the remains of a dead body and on account of the time gap, the prosecution has not established, unerringly, that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who has committed the crime. The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged before that the evidence in respect of motive is also weak as there is no evidence that deceased Aba, who is alleged to have advanced Rs. 25 lacs to the appellant, was demanding the refund of the same and the appellant had refused to pay. In respect of the discovery of the bones and the number-plates, it is urged before us that the panch was known to the family members of the deceased and the discovery memorandum does not establish the concealment by the appellant. It is also urged before us that there is no evidence that the appellant was using the telephone number in respect of which the call details have been placed on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and the appellant alone, who has committed the crime. Learned APP, on the other hand, has urged before us that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant by virtue of evidence of PW 1 - Nivedita and PW 9 - Subhash. It is also urged before us that money had been advanced to the appellant and this is deposed too by PW 3 - Nandu Rokade. The deceased and the appellant had gone for collecting the money, which was to be paid by the appellant. About motive, it is urged before us that two cheques issued by the appellant were found in the house of the appellant. It is also urged before us that human bones were discovered at the behest of the appellant as well as the number-plates of the Santro car. 26. The dead body of deceased Aba Ingale was never discovered. Under the discovery memorandum what was discovered was few human bones. The evidence of PW 1 - Nivedita and PW 9 - Subhash, in our opinion, clearly established that deceased Aba and the appellant had left together in the Santro car. Though both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, in our opinion, the appellant has not been able to make any dent in the evidence of these witnesses which would in any manner reflect on the credibility of these witnesses. Though both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, in our opinion, the appellant has not been able to make any dent in the evidence of these witnesses which would in any manner reflect on the credibility of these witnesses. At the close of their cross-examination, both these witnesses have emerged as truthful witnesses on whom implicit reliance can be placed. It is true that PW 1 - Nivedita had not lodged any report. PW 1 - Nivedita, however, had contacted PW 2 - Tukaram and had also contacted PW 4 - Bharat as well as PW 7 - Ram for inquiring the whereabouts of deceased Aba and the appellant. The appellant was questioned by PW 2 - Tukaram as well as by PW 4 - Bharat and PW 7 - Ram regarding the whereabouts of deceased Aba. This could only have been done since deceased Aba was noticed to have gone along with the appellant. The fact that the deceased and the appellant were travelling together in the car is also deposed too by PW 9 - Subhash, who, on 9/1/2009 had gone to the residence of the deceased and had informed the relatives about noticing the appellant and deceased Aba together. None of these witnesses have any acts to grind against the appellant. The appellant, in fact, was a good friend of deceased Aba and was a trusted person in the household of deceased Aba. There were financial dealings between deceased Aba and the appellant and deceased Aba had advanced him a hand-loan of Rs. 25 lacs. The evidence of PW 3 - Nandu Rokade establishes this fact as well as the fact that the appellant had given two cheques drawn in the name of PW 3 - Nandu for Rs. 5 lacs each, which were collected by the appellant prior to the incident. The appellant had not refunded the amount to deceased Aba. The evidence of these witnesses establishes that deceased Aba had gone with the appellant as the appellant was to refund the said amount and they had gone ostensibly for collecting the amount. In fact, it has been elicited in the cross-examination itself that deceased Aba was a gentle person, who was never insisting or pursuing for refund of the amount. The evidence of these witnesses establishes that deceased Aba had gone with the appellant as the appellant was to refund the said amount and they had gone ostensibly for collecting the amount. In fact, it has been elicited in the cross-examination itself that deceased Aba was a gentle person, who was never insisting or pursuing for refund of the amount. There is no evidence about any demand being made and about the appellant refusing to refund the amount as that occasion had never arisen as possibly the appellant had assured that he would be refunding the amount on that day as they had gone for collecting the money. The motive, therefore, in our opinion, has been established. The appellant has not been able to establish that he had sufficient money on the day of the incident or that he was in a position to repay the amount and, therefore, the outstanding loan would not be a motive for him to commit the crime. The appellant was suspected right from the beginning as the appellant had accompanied deceased Aba. A report was thereafter lodged by PW 2 - Tukaram and during custodial interrogation, the appellant led the police and the panchas to a remote place in the jungle, which was not visible from the highway and pointed out the place from where half burnt human bones were found. Deceased Aba had disappeared on 6/1/2009 and thereafter was not seen alive. The dead body of deceased Aba was not found but since deceased Aba was not seen alive thereafter and there was no reason for deceased Aba to either disappear or conceal his presence, an inference, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence can certainly be drawn that deceased Aba had died. The knowledge of the appellant about the place as well as the knowledge of the appellant about human bones being found at the remote place would certainly be relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The police were not aware about the place, where the human bones were discovered. The scene, where the human bones were found, indicated that some inflammable substance had been used. The finding of the human bones, particularly the half burnt bones, would indicate that a human body had been set ablaze. The police were not aware about the place, where the human bones were discovered. The scene, where the human bones were found, indicated that some inflammable substance had been used. The finding of the human bones, particularly the half burnt bones, would indicate that a human body had been set ablaze. Since the appellant and the deceased Aba had gone together and the deceased was not alive thereafter, an inference about culpability of the appellant can certainly be drawn. This is further reinforced by the finding of the number-plates again at a place, though accessible to all, but was not visible to anyone. The appellant certainly had the knowledge about the place where the number-plates would be found. The number-plates had been concealed and were not visible to any passerby. The appellant has not explained his knowledge about both these places in his statement under Section 313. On the basis of the disclosure statement of an accused and finding of object pursuant thereto, three inferences against an accused can be drawn. The inferences are, (i) the accused has himself kept it at that place, (ii) the accused has knowledge about the articles being kept at that place and (iii) the accused has seen someone placing the articles. A reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 554 (SC). The accused in the present case has not offered any explanation regarding his knowledge about the place. The disclosure memorandum of an accused encompasses not only the object, which is produced, but also the place from where it is produced. In the present case, both the places were not visible to general public and, therefore, the knowledge cannot be attributed to the accused that while passing by the road, he had seen the said objects. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that on the basis of the disclosure memorandum of the appellant, the number-plates as well as the human bones were found. The prosecution, in our opinion, has also established that deceased Aba and the appellant were seen together leaving the house of the appellant by PW 1 - Nivedita and were seen travelling at Katraj by PW 9 - Subhash. The prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had advanced Rs. The prosecution, in our opinion, has also established that deceased Aba and the appellant were seen together leaving the house of the appellant by PW 1 - Nivedita and were seen travelling at Katraj by PW 9 - Subhash. The prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had advanced Rs. 25 lacs to the appellant and the appellant was to refund the said amount on that day. The prosecution has established that deceased Aba had been done to death. 27. Deceased Aba had left the house on 6/1/2009 and the remains of a dead body were discovered much later. It is true that there is enormous time gap between deceased Aba being last seen alive in the company of the appellant and finding of the partly burnt bones at the behest of the appellant. Deceased Aba was not seen alive after 6/1/2009. It is, therefore, clear that deceased Aba had been killed on 6/1/2009 but the remains were found much later. The time gap, therefore, between deceased Aba being seen alive in the company of the appellant and finding of the human bones on a subsequent date would not enure to the benefit of the appellant. 28. The appellant was using the phone, which was belonging to PW 12 - Mayur as well as another mobile phone, which was standing in his name. In respect of the mobile phone, belonging to him, no call details were available as there were no outgoing and incoming calls on that number. PW 12 - Mayur has admitted that the mobile phone, standing in his name, had been given to his sister i.e. the wife of the appellant, which was being used by the appellant. The appellant claims that his relations with PW 12 - Mayur were strained and, therefore, Mayur was deposing false. The call details as well as the tower location clearly indicate that deceased Aba and the appellant were travelling together as the call details and tower location of their mobiles clearly matched. The call details further indicate that PW 1 - Nivedita had attempted to call the appellant but the appellant was not answering her calls. The call details as well as the tower location clearly indicate that deceased Aba and the appellant were travelling together as the call details and tower location of their mobiles clearly matched. The call details further indicate that PW 1 - Nivedita had attempted to call the appellant but the appellant was not answering her calls. The cell number of the mobile, which was standing in the name of PW 12 - Mayur, had been available with PW 1 - Nivedita and unless the appellant was using the said mobile, PW 1 - Nivedita would not be in possession of the said telephone number. 29. We are not inclined to place any reliance on the disclosure of the scarf and the photograph of Amma Bhagwan at the behest of the appellant as the memorandum of the appellant does not make any reference to the authorship of concealment of those articles. The disclosure memorandum, no doubt, does not state about the appellant concealing the number-plates, but as pointed out by us above, the number-plates had been found in the bushes and the number-plates were not visible to any passerby. It is not established by the appellant that the place was frequent by anyone and we find it difficult to believe that any person, apart from the appellant, would find the number-plates casually on the highway somewhere in the bushes. The number-plates, it is obvious to us, had been deliberately concealed and this was done, in our opinion, to obliterate the identity of Santro car belonging to the deceased. The attempt was to delay the discovery of the car of the deceased. Therefore, in our opinion, the discovery of the number-plates can be relied upon as the number plates had been concealed by the appellant. 30. In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should be of incriminating nature i.e. they should have definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances, so proved, should form a complete chain, which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances, which form the chain, should be capable of only one hypothesis i.e. that the accused and accused alone has committed the offence. 31. The circumstances, so proved, should form a complete chain, which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances, which form the chain, should be capable of only one hypothesis i.e. that the accused and accused alone has committed the offence. 31. The circumstances proved by the prosecution, in our opinion, certainly form a chain of circumstances, which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and the only hypothesis that is available is that it is the appellant and the appellant alone, who has committed the offence. In our opinion, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and no interference is called for in this appeal. This appeal filed by the appellant being sans merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2014 is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.