JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The Appellants stand convicted under Section 302, 34 IPC to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- each. In the event of failure to pay the fine they were each required to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Khelan Yadav has been further convicted under Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine he was required to undergo three months further imprisonment. The conviction of Appellant Khelan has been directed to run consecutively, as ordered by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in S.T. No. 33 of 1999 dated 24.5.1999. 2. The FIR, Exhibit P-1, was lodged on 23.3.1998 the day of occurrence itself at 9:00 P.M. by PW-1, P.A. George, elder brother of the deceased with regard to the assault stated to have take place at about 8:00 P.M. The witness stated that the deceased went to Bhilai every morning at 6:00 A.M. on duty and would return by 7-8 P.M. to village Bagdumar. The witness was home at about 8:00 P.M. when his younger sister PW-6 Lucy Sahu came crying shouting the name of the deceased and became unconscious. The witness went to the house of the deceased and saw an assembly of villagers who told him that the deceased was being assaulted by some people near the Culvert. He ran in that direction and met PW-2 Santosh as also two to three other persons. PW-2 informed him that the deceased had been killed by the Appellants. The deceased had several injuries on his body. The post mortem of the deceased marked Exhibit P-5 was done on 24.3.1998 at about 11:40 A.M. by PW-4 Dr. P.C. Agrawal who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "Injuries : (1) Stab wound 4 x 2.5 cm x 8 cm deep passing down words and laterally oblique situated just below and lateral to Epigastrium. (2) Stab wound 5 x 2.5 cm 7.5 cm deep transverse middle of right lower chest 7-8 intercostal space at mid clavicular line oblique in words and down words (3) Stab wound 4 x 2.5 cm 7 cm deep transverse below and lateral to left nipple between 4th and 5th inter casted space down words, in words, laterally oblique. (4) Difface blood hematopia and cut both chest wall below muscle layer. (4) Difface blood hematopia and cut both chest wall below muscle layer. (5) Perforation of left chest wall between 4th and 5th inter casal space below and lateral to nipple. (6) Perforation of chest wall (R) lower chest. (7) Left lung perforated 2x2x3 cm. (9) Dark coloured clotted blood in thoracic cavity. (9) Perforation of lesser curvature of body of stomach middle of medio-superior border from their dark coffee ground fluid coming out. (10) Laceration of liver superior surface 2 x 2 x 3 cm. (11) Dark clotted blood in thoracic cavity. Injuries (A) Head, Face, Shoulder region. : (1) Incised wound 4.2 x 2 cm bone deep verticle middle of occipital region. (2) Incised wound 14 x 4 cm bone deep left cheek below and behind left ear too. (C) Lateral to nose or left ramus of mondible cut horizontal. (3) Incised wound 11.3 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm deep from middle of left side of nose to middle of left cheek oblique. (4) Incised wound 8 x 2 x 3.4 cm (L) shoulder verticle (5) Incised wound 5 x 1 cm M layer deep medial to 4th injury. (6) Multiple linear incised wound in area of 22 x 7 cm (L) shoulder and scapular region posteriorly. (7) Incised wound 4 x 2.6 cm bone deep below left shoulder laterally and transverse. (B) Upper Extremities :- (8) Incised wound 5 x 3 cm bone deep left upper arm upper 1/3rd Transverse (9) Incised wound 10 x 3 cm m deep (L) upper arm oblique post above elbow. (10) Incised wound 3 x 15 cm m deep above 9th injury (11) Incised wound 11 x 8 cm bone deep partially cutting (L) elbow joint post. (12) shaft (L) humerus (L) lower 1/3rd. (13) Incised wound 3 x 3 cm m deep (L) forearm upper 1/3rd post oblique. (14) Incised wound 4 x 2 cm m deep upper 1/3rd of (L) forearm. Post verticle lateral to 13th injury. (15) Incised wound 3 x 8 cm x 2 cm m deep (L) forearm middle 1/3rd post oblique. (16) Incised wound 4 x 3 cm m deep (L) forearm lower 1/3rd medially oblique. (17) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm (L) forearm 1/3rd ant. (18) Incised wound 2.5 x 2 cm m deep (L) forearm lower 1/3rd Ant. (15) Incised wound 3 x 8 cm x 2 cm m deep (L) forearm middle 1/3rd post oblique. (16) Incised wound 4 x 3 cm m deep (L) forearm lower 1/3rd medially oblique. (17) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm (L) forearm 1/3rd ant. (18) Incised wound 2.5 x 2 cm m deep (L) forearm lower 1/3rd Ant. (19) Incised wound 5 x 1 cm m deep transverse (20) Incised wound 4 x 2 cm right upper arm bone deep middle 1/3rd post Tr. (21) Incised wound 5 x 2.5 cm m deep (R) forearm below elbow joint Ant medially. (22) Incised wound 5 x 3 cm verticle m deep near 21st injury. (23) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm m deep (R) forearm upper 1/3rd Ant. Tr. (24) Incised wound 4 x 2.5 cm bone deep (R) elbow Ant. Tr. (25) Incised wound 5 x 2 cm m deep (R) forearm upper 1/3rd post verticle (26) Incised wound 4 x 2.5 cm muscle deep post verticle middle 1/3rd. (27) Incised wound 4 x 2.5 cm bone deep verticle below 26th injury. (28) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm (R) palm post (29) Incised wound 6 x 4 cm m deep (R) palm lateral to 28th injury, (30) Incised wound 6 x 4 cm bone deep between (R) thumb x index finger. (C) Thorax and Abdomen :- (1) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm muscle deep transver over Epigasprium. (2) Incised wound 3.8 x 2 cm Tr. (L) lower sterner border bone deep. (3) Incised wound 4 x 2 cm just below (R) subcutal region middle 1/3rd Tr. (5) Incised wound 2 x 2 cm m deep (L) lower abdomen (6) Incised wound 2 x 1 cm bone deep (R) middle parasterival region Tr. (7) Incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm Tr. M deep below and lateral to 6th injury. (8) Incised wound 1 x 1 cm below 7th injury. (9) Incised wound 2 x 1 cm m deep verticle above bone deep left nipple. (10) Incised wound 1 x 1 cm bone deep (L) upper parasternal region. (11) Incised wound 4 x 2 cm bone deep (L) chest lateral to nipple. (12) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x 7 cm deep (L) lateral abdomen above iliac crest. (13) Multiple linear incised wound of various size (L) thigh. (10) Incised wound 1 x 1 cm bone deep (L) upper parasternal region. (11) Incised wound 4 x 2 cm bone deep (L) chest lateral to nipple. (12) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x 7 cm deep (L) lateral abdomen above iliac crest. (13) Multiple linear incised wound of various size (L) thigh. (14) Incised wound 4 x 2.5 cm m. deep post to (L) knee joint Tr." 3. All injuries except No. 12 were found to be caused by hard and sharp object and injury No. 12 by hard and blunt object. Death was opined due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the described intensive injuries. The memorandum of Appellant Khelan Yadav was marked Exhibit P-3 leading to recovery of the Sword. Exhibit P-4, from the bushes in the field of Kaliram having blood spot on it, confirmed in the FSL report Exhibit P-19 and Exhibit P-20 along with the clothes and slippers of the Appellants marked Exhibit P-12, Exhibit P-13 and Exhibit P-14 also confirmed in the FSL report as having blood on them. 4. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Though the arguments have been made separately by two separate sets of Counsel in the two Appeals arising from a common conviction we shall consider it cumulatively for convenience. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that PW-1, the brother of the deceased, deposed that Konda had informed him that Appellant Khelan and two others were assaulting the deceased near the Culvert. Konda has not been examined. In a case of circumstantial evidence, he was an important witness with regard to what he may or may not have witnessed with regard to the assault. No explanation has been given for not examining him. The Police during investigation also did not bother to record his statement. PW-1 was not a reliable witness. In the FIR he names PW2-Santosh as the person who informed him while during deposition he names Konda as the person who informed-him. The witness himself did not appear sure about who the assailants of his brother were. No motive has been ascribed in the FIR. PW-3, the witness to seizure of the Sword alleged to have been used by Appellant Khelan for assaulting the deceased has stated that it was not the same Sword which was seized. The witness himself did not appear sure about who the assailants of his brother were. No motive has been ascribed in the FIR. PW-3, the witness to seizure of the Sword alleged to have been used by Appellant Khelan for assaulting the deceased has stated that it was not the same Sword which was seized. The seizure was not followed by sealing of the Sword as an exhibit. It was kept in open. The Investigating Officer, PW-8, had acknowledged that it was not sent to the Doctor immediately for opinion if the injuries could not have been caused by it. If the identity of the Sword is itself doubtful not much turns on the FSL report with regard to the blood spot on it. The FSL report does not confirm that the blood found either on the Sword or on the clothes of the Appellants marked contained human blood. The alleged recovery of the Sword is from the open field of one Kaliram accessible to all and it cannot be said that it was something discovered on confession. The road on which the deceased is alleged to have been assaulted had busy traffic and if the assault had taken place on the road at night with more than one passerby crossing. someone or the other would have witnessed the assault in the vehicular light. Santosh, PW-2, due to whose evidence, the last seen theory is being applied against the Appellants has not stated of their being possessed of a Sword or any other instrument capable of being used for assault. The Investigating Officer states that he met the villagers the same day but there is nothing on record to show why PW-2 did not disclose the fact of the deceased being in the company of the Appellants, the same night when the police came. 5. The conduct of the Appellants is incompatible with their guilt as being the assailants. In that event they would have fled the village rather than staying back running the risk of being caught and facing trial. It was lastly submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory by itself was not conclusive to hold guilty unless all other link in the chain of circumstances was complete. Reliance was placed on Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 Cri. It was lastly submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory by itself was not conclusive to hold guilty unless all other link in the chain of circumstances was complete. Reliance was placed on Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 Cri. L.J. 1950, Dharam Deo Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 . Assailing the conviction of Appellant Khelan to run consecutively under Section 302, 34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act, reliance was placed on Manoj alias Panu vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153 to submit that it should have been ordered to run concurrently. 6. Counsel for the State submitted that the Appellants do not deny meeting PW-2 Santosh and asking him to proceed even while they asked the deceased to stay back. Blood has been found on their clothes for which they have offered no explanation. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the question was put to the Appellants that Santosh, PW-2 and the deceased were traveling together when the Appellants asked PW-2 to proceed leaving the deceased behind with them. The last seen theory against the Appellants on the basis of the evidence of PW-2 completes the chain of circumstances as it is very close in proximity of time to the death of the deceased. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the evidence on record also. PW-1 in the FIR stated that the villagers informed him that some people were beating his brother near the Culvert. He ran and met PW-2 on the way as also and two-three others. PW-2 named the Appellants as the assailants. The reference to Konda has to be appreciated in context of the villagers and the other persons whom he met apart from PW-2. We do not find any contradiction or lacuna in the prosecution case; because of the non-examination of Konda. It is not the case of the Appellants that Konda was not a resident of the same village Bagdumar. Furthermore, Konda is stated to have disclosed the name of Appellant Khelan as the assailant along with two others. Merely because they have not been named specifically does not create any doubt about the identity of the other two, as they have specifically been mentioned in the FIR. Furthermore, Konda is stated to have disclosed the name of Appellant Khelan as the assailant along with two others. Merely because they have not been named specifically does not create any doubt about the identity of the other two, as they have specifically been mentioned in the FIR. The witness further stated that the deceased had relations with the sister of Appellant Khelan much to the dislike of the latter. 8. PW-2, Santosh Yadav, deposed consistent with PW-1 that the deceased and he were travelling to Bhilai together every morning for work and would return in the evening around 7-8 P.M. On the fateful day also they were I coming back together and met the Appellants on the way. The Appellants asked the deceased to stay back near the Culvert and told the witness to proceed. This was in the proximity of 7:00 to 7:30 P.M. The witness proceeded to the Pan Shop in the village and while he was sitting there chatting, one person came and informed him that a person was lying dead near the Culvert. He went near the Culvert and saw the deceased lying dead. Undoubtedly, he did not see the Appellants having anything in their hands and did not see any one of them assaulting. True he stated it was a busy road but he also stated that in the darkness of the night, he recognized three Appellants by voice as they were all residents of the same village. It is possible that any instrument that the Appellants held were kept behind the back or by the roadside also. It is also possible that the witness did not see it in the darkness of the night as he states that he recognized the Appellants by voice being residents of the same village. The Appellants would not have risked being seen with weapons in their hands on the road in the vehicular lights. The evidence of PW-2 manifests events in very close proximity of time leading to the assault on the deceased. It is not the case of the Appellants that they had parted company with the deceased after having asked him to stay back or that he went away with any another. 9. The confession of the Appellant Khelan was witnessed by PW-3 Maksudan. It is not the case of the Appellants that they had parted company with the deceased after having asked him to stay back or that he went away with any another. 9. The confession of the Appellant Khelan was witnessed by PW-3 Maksudan. The witness acknowledges his signature on the memorandum Exhibit P-3 and also the seizure of the sword Exhibit P-4 pursuant to the same. He does not state that his signature was taken on a blank paper or that he was forced to sign. He acknowledges recovery of a Sword on the confession but then seeks to clarify by saying that there was no blood on it. 10. PW-4, Dr. P.C. Agrawal, confirmed that all injuries had been caused within 24 hours of the post mortem and also that the nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by a Sword. 11. PW-6, Lucy Sahu, sister of the deceased, likewise deposed that the deceased would return to the village from work around 7-8 PM. On the fateful day PW-2 had informed her around 7:45 to 8:00 P.M. that the deceased had been assaulted near the Culvert. She reiterated that the deceased was having relation with the sister of the Appellant Khelan and because of which they had killed him. The fact that the witness may have stated that PW-2 did not inform her the name of the assailants is not relevant as according to the witness, PW-2 had informed PW-1 of the murderous assault by the Appellants. 12. The credibility of the evidence of PW-2 with regard to the deceased being last seen in the company of the Appellants finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-7 Janak Lal confirming that PW-2 was sitting with him at the pan shop chatting when the information of the assault on the deceased near the Culvert was given. 13. PW-8, the Investigating Officer, proved the crime spot map Exhibit P-9. the inquest report Exhibit P-11 and the recovery of the Sword from the bushes in the field along with the seizure of the clothes of the Appellants and the sending of the items for forensic examination. 14. 13. PW-8, the Investigating Officer, proved the crime spot map Exhibit P-9. the inquest report Exhibit P-11 and the recovery of the Sword from the bushes in the field along with the seizure of the clothes of the Appellants and the sending of the items for forensic examination. 14. In a case of circumstantial evidence based on the last seen theory, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the sequence of events forming a complete chain of circumstances each interlinked to the other compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and completely incompatible with their innocence. If there is any reasonable doubt or any one link in this chain of circumstances is absent, the benefit of it must go to the accused by giving them benefit of doubt by holding that the charges had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The last seen theory is but one of the grounds in a case of circumstantial evidence for conviction. But, the last seen theory cannot be invoked simplicitor by itself for conviction and has to be considered in conjunction with all other attending circumstances. 15. In Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 14 SCC 401 with reference to the last seen theory it was observed:-- "27. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible,.." 16. This theory must not remain at the stage of suspicion only coupled with the absence of any motive as held in Kanhaiya Lal 2014 Cri. L.J. 1950 (supra) relied upon by the Appellants, But if the facts of a particular case for the last seen theory are telling, motive exists and there is great proximity of time between when the deceased was last seen with the assailants along with the other facts and circumstances including recovery of the weapon of assault on confession with blood on it and also blood on the clothes and slippers of the Appellants circumstances become telling and complete the chain. Matters then go beyond realm of mere suspicion. Matters then go beyond realm of mere suspicion. In Dharam Deo Yadav (2014) 5 SCC 509 (supra) relied upon by the Appellants it was noticed that the last seen theory would come into play when the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any other person than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible and longer the time gap between when the deceased was last seen with the accused the greater doubt for application of the last seen theory. 17. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased and PW-2 would travel every day from their village to Bhilai for work and would come back around the same time when the deceased was assaulted. It is not the case of the Appellants that the deceased and PW-2 were not traveling together on the fateful day or that they had taken some other route. Quite obviously, the Appellants are residents of the same village as the deceased and the witness and were well aware of the lime and route by which the deceased would return from work. The Investigating Officer has deposed that he did not record any statements at night but did so the next day. 18. The recovery of the Sword from the bushes in a field cannot be said to be from a public place visible, accessible and open to all. The Sword lying in the field visible to the naked eye without any effort is one thing and the Sword being hidden in the bushes in the field not visible to a passerby with a naked eye but known only to the person who hid it in the bushes is a different matter. 19. Considering a similar issue it was observed in State of H.P. vs. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 as follows:-- "26. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". 19. Considering a similar issue it was observed in State of H.P. vs. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 as follows:-- "26. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried in the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence, the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others." 20. In view of our conclusion regarding the deceased last having been seen with the Appellants in very close proximity of time to the assault, there being no explanation coming from the Appellants when they parted company with the deceased or any other intervening circumstances in the very short period of time, the recovery of the Sword becomes a corroborative factor. Even if the Sword had not been recovered, the answerability would still have rested with the Appellants on the last seen theory. Blood has been found on the clothes and slipper of the Appellants for which they have offered no explanation. It is not normal for a person to have blood on his clothes unless he is able to explain reasons for the presence. 21. Blood has also been found on the slippers of the Appellant Shiv Prasad and Appellant Khelan in the forensic report. The argument that there is nothing to demonstrate that it was human blood in the facts of the case leaves us totally unimpressed. 21. Blood has also been found on the slippers of the Appellant Shiv Prasad and Appellant Khelan in the forensic report. The argument that there is nothing to demonstrate that it was human blood in the facts of the case leaves us totally unimpressed. Once the forensic report has confirmed the presence of blood on the items we are satisfied that the chain of circumstances for application of the last seen theory, coupled with the existence of a motive because of Appellant Khelan's sister having relations with the deceased, stands completed as the Appellants being the assailants of the deceased. 22. That leaves the only question with regard to the Appellant Khelan, if the conviction was to run concurrently or consecutively. In Manoj alias Panu (2014) 2 SCC 153 (supra) relied upon by the Appellants it was held that if the offences committed were under a single transaction, the conviction must run concurrently and not consecutively. The conviction of the Appellant Khelan under IPC and Arms Act is therefore directed to run concurrently. 23. The Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are canceled and they are directed to surrender forthwith or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence with the modification as directed with regard to the Appellant Khelan. 24. The Appeals are dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.