JUDGMENT JASPAL SINGH, J The present appeal emanates from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 02, 2009, whereby, appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/and in default, thereof, to further undergo RI for one year for an offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo RI for five years for an offence under Section 201 IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and period of detention already undergone by convict was ordered to be set off from his substantive sentence of imprisonment. 2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that on April 16, 2007, upon receipt of telephonic information that an unidentified dead body was lying in the bushes near railway line going from Hisar to Rewari between Swastic and Mittal Pipe Factories, SHO Police Station, GRP Hisar accompanied by other police officials visited the said place and found a dead body of an unidentified person, aged about 35/36 years. In the meantime, Deepak Kumar accompanied by Om Parkash also reached there, after coming to know the factum of dead body of an unidentified person lying there through a newspaper. He as well as Om Parkash identified the dead body to be that of Brij Kishore, father of Deepak Kumar. Accordingly, inquest proceedings were conducted by SHO. At that time, it was also unfolded by Deepak Kumar son of Brij Kishore deceased that on April 14, 2007 at about 1.00/2.00 PM, one unknown person came to his house and enquired about his father, who asked him to send his father at a hotel located in front of Jindal Strips; but he forgot to tell this fact to his father as he himself returned late to house at about 10.00 P.M. On the next day, same person revisited his house and enquired as to why he has not sent his father last day. At that time, he asserted that he would be available in the same hotel/dhaba during 8.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. and he must send his father there. Thereafter, his father went to the abovesaid hotel/dhaba on his auto rickshaw at about 5.00 P.M. but did not return. At that time, he asserted that he would be available in the same hotel/dhaba during 8.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. and he must send his father there. Thereafter, his father went to the abovesaid hotel/dhaba on his auto rickshaw at about 5.00 P.M. but did not return. Then, he enquired at his own level about the whereabouts of his father and found that his father's auto rickshaw was lying parked in front of a tea shop. Even on the next day, his father did not return and ultimately he alongwith his uncle Sajjan Kumar and Umesh brought the abandoned three wheeler to his house, when he identified the dead body of his father, both the hands of his father were tied with his trouser, whereas, the string of underwear and shirt were found tied over his neck. He suspected that the murder of his father might have been committed by the person who came to his house prior to the incident along with some other persons. On the basis of statement of Deepak Kumar, FIR was registered and investigation was put into motion. 3. On June 24, 2007, Bishan Kumar @ Bishnu, Ex. Municipal Commissioner produced Mithai Lal before SHO and revealed that accused Mithai Lal suffered an extra judicial confession to the effect that he along with his three companions committed murder of Brij Kishore and threw his dead body in the bushes. He also requested to produce him before the police. It was further disclosed by him that reason behind the murder of Brij Kishore was that he was not making the payment of Rs.36,000/i.e. sale consideration of shuttering plates, which were stolen by them from the bridge (under construction). The investigating officer recorded the statement of Bishan Kumar in this regard besides the statements of Kamla wife of the deceased, Om Parkash, Sajjan Kumar, Brij Bhushan, Project Manager and Jagdish, owner of dhaba, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.). He also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. After preparation of inquest report in respect of the corpse of the deceased Ex.P2, he deputed HC Narender Kumar and despatched the dead body to PGI, Rohtak for getting conducted autopsy. 4. After completion of investigation and other formalities, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court of learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. After preparation of inquest report in respect of the corpse of the deceased Ex.P2, he deputed HC Narender Kumar and despatched the dead body to PGI, Rohtak for getting conducted autopsy. 4. After completion of investigation and other formalities, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court of learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. Since an offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C after having complied with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C vide order dated September 18, 2007. 5. Finding a prima facie case from the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and documents annexed with it, appellant was charged to face trial under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated October 29, 2007. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses; besides relying upon various documents. PW1 Dr. S.K. Dhatarwal, testified that on April 18, 2007, he conducted postmortem on the corpse of Brij Kishore aged 45 years, on police request Ex.P1. The deceased was wearing full sleeve shirt of multi coloured check, buttons were open; a sando white vest; a grey colour socks on left foot; a pink and red colour thread around right wrist; a yellow metallic ring on right ring finger. He deposed that clothes were smudged with decomposed tissues, bleeding from nose, mouth and ear was present. Rigor mortis was passed off, body was emitting foul smell, maggots of size 3 to 5 mm. crawling over body, peeling of epidermis, bloating of features, degloving, loosening of hair. He found that there was a lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cms., over right side of occipital region 7 cms. above and posterior to right pinna with evidence of clotted blood and ecchymosis. The ligature material consisted of a NARA (string) of a patedar “kachha”, circumference was 33 cms and other end was 43 cms as shown in diagram, the knot was slippery (sliding). Material was cut and preserved. above and posterior to right pinna with evidence of clotted blood and ecchymosis. The ligature material consisted of a NARA (string) of a patedar “kachha”, circumference was 33 cms and other end was 43 cms as shown in diagram, the knot was slippery (sliding). Material was cut and preserved. He further deposed that ligature mark was 0.75 cm wide reddish brown and situated over neck 4cms below chin anteriorly at level of thyroid cartilage 4 cms below angles of mandible on sides and 7 cms below occipital protuberance on back, tranverse, completely encircling neck, underlying tissues showed ecchymosis, underlying laryngeal cartilages show fracture with infiltration of blood around fracture site. Brain was congested and partial liquified. Pleura, larynx and trachea were congested. Lungs were marked congested, mouth and pharanx also showed congestion. Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. All other organs were healthy. He also testified that as per his opinion, the cause of death was strangulation by ligature. He proved carbon copy of the autopsy report (Ex.P3), which bears his signatures. He handed over to the police; dead body; clothes and belongings with five seals, copy of PMR, police papers 13 in numbers duly signed, viscera in packet with 10 seals, an envelop with five seals containing forwarding memo and copy of PMR, a jar with two seals containing clavicle bone for DNA test (if needed), a sealed parcel with three seals containing ligature material, two sealed packet with two seals each containing swab for evidence of intercourse, six sample of seals. PW2 EHC Raj Kumar prepared the site plan Ex.P12 of the place of recovery of the dead body. PW3, EHC Laxman Ram tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P13, who handled the case property of instant case during investigation. PW4 Deepak is the son of the deceased and author of FIR. He has reiterated the version earlier narrated by him in his statement made before the police. He also identified the accused to be same person who visited his house twice. PW5 Bishan Kumar, Ex. Municipal Commissioner deposed with regard to extra judicial confession suffered by accused/appellant with regard to his involvement in the commission of murder of Brij Kishore. PW6 Brij Bhushan, Project Manager testified about the factum of theft of 40 shuttering plates and some steel bars underneath of bridge under construction. PW5 Bishan Kumar, Ex. Municipal Commissioner deposed with regard to extra judicial confession suffered by accused/appellant with regard to his involvement in the commission of murder of Brij Kishore. PW6 Brij Bhushan, Project Manager testified about the factum of theft of 40 shuttering plates and some steel bars underneath of bridge under construction. PW7 Jagdish, owner of Fauji Dhaba deposed that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused/appellant and his accomplices. PW8, SI Jangir Singh conducted the investigation of the case and deposed on the lines of investigation. PW9 Ravinder Mohan, Photographer clicked the photographs of the place of occurrence, as well as that of dead body and proved negatives, thereof, Ex.P17 to Ex.P20 and developed photographs Ex.P21 to Ex.P24. PW10 Ravinder Kumar retired MHC, tendered his affidavit Ex.P25, as his evidence with regard to handling of case property. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 7. When the incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence were put to the accused by the learned trial Court for eliciting his explanation as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied them and pleaded innocence. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police at the instance of Pardeep Tiwari, Contractor as he had raised a voice against him for nonpayment of remuneration in lieu of the services rendered by him as a labourer. 8. Appellant was called upon to enter in defence and examined Pardeep Tiwari as DW1, who deposed that accused/appellant had worked with him from November 18, 2006 to March 26, 2007 and had left the job by saying that he had received a message from his house and would return after two months, but afterwards, he was not seen by him at Hisar. It has further been deposed by him that though small items were stolen yet, no plate was stolen from construction site. He also produced the copies of attendance registers Ex.D2 to Ex.D6. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed. 9. After hearing both sides, as also, after going through the evidence and material available on record, accusedappellant was convicted and sentenced as reflected in para1 of this judgment. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, appellant filed the instant appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof and for his acquittal of offence, for which, he was charged by the learned trial Court, which was admitted for hearing. Trial Court record was requisitioned and received. 10. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, appellant filed the instant appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof and for his acquittal of offence, for which, he was charged by the learned trial Court, which was admitted for hearing. Trial Court record was requisitioned and received. 10. While assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it has been ebulliently argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case at the instance of Pardeep Tiwari (DW1) in connivance with the police, as he did not pay his labour charges. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed to adduce cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The case of the prosecution solely hinges on circumstantial evidence. 11. By now, it is well settled by catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court that for proving the guilt of a person for commission of an offence based upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must lead evidence to connect all links in the chain, so as to clearly point out the guilt of the accused alone and nobody else. In case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh; 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 467; following observation was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court: “It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence.” There is another basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 12. 12. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution sought to prove the charge against appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence i.e. (i) extra judicial confession made by accused/appellant before PW5/Bishan Kumar; (ii) that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused/appellant and his accomplices by PW7/Jagdish at his Dhaba; and (iii) the motive behind murder was that the deceased was not making the payment of `36,000/the sale consideration of scrap to the accused/appellant, but the prosecution has failed to establish any of these circumstances to connect the accused/appellant with the commission of murder of Brij Kishore. 13. To criticize an extra judicial confession allegedly suffered by accused/appellant before PW5/Bishan Kumar, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that an extra judicial confession was allegedly made by accused/appellant to PW5/Bishan Kumar. He cannot be termed to be an independent witness. During his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he is the cousin of Kamla wife of the deceased and further that accused/appellant was not earlier known to him. It is wholly unlikely that accused/appellant would suffer an extra judicial confession to a person whom he never knew. He has been padded as a witness by prosecution just to strengthen this case. The submission of such an interested and related witness deserves to be disbelieved and discarded and cannot be made the basis for conviction. 14. Similarly, another circumstance put forth by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. PW7Jagdish, owner of Fauji dhaba, deposed that on April 15, 2007 at about 9/9.30 P.M. accused accompanied by deceased and 34 other persons visited his 'Dhaba' and they were served with tea. At that time a conversation was going on amongst them with regard to some pecuniary dispute. At about 9.30 P.M. they left the dhaba and went towards Railway line. But his deposition suffers from various infirmities, which belie his version. He did not report the matter to the police immediately, rather informed the police after 2025 days of the occurrence. An explanation furnished by him is that on the next day i.e. April 16, 2007, he rented out his dhaba to some one and left to his village Gadhera in Rajasthan, but nothing has come on record to whom dhaba was rented out by him. An explanation furnished by him is that on the next day i.e. April 16, 2007, he rented out his dhaba to some one and left to his village Gadhera in Rajasthan, but nothing has come on record to whom dhaba was rented out by him. Even no documentary evidence has also been brought on record by the prosecution, such an explanation is no explanation in the eyes of law and cannot be believed. The reporting of the matter to police after about 20/25 days, itself causes a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. So, his statement also cannot be made the basis of conviction of the appellant. 15. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though motive in a murder case is of little importance but if the case is based on circumstantial evidence, then motive assumes greater importance. Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused tries to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit a crime. In the case in hand, motive put forth is that accused/appellant sold away shuttering plates to the deceased, a scrap dealer but he did not pay its sale consideration. It is not established on record that shuttering plates were stolen from the bridge where the construction was going on. In fact, prosecution has sought to establish motive by examining PW6/Brij Bhushan, Project Manager, who deposed that physical verification/checking of articles lying at the site of construction was got conducted and 40 shuttering plates and some steel bars were found missing. But to the utter surprise, neither he nor the watchman lodged any complaint with the police. No documentary evidence i.e. Stock register or the physical verification report etc. was placed on record. Even, he could not tell as to when these articles were stolen. So, in such a situation, the version of PW6/Brij Bhushan stands belied. Since the motive is not at all established, appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. 16. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove any of the circumstances referred to above to connect the accused/appellant with the commission of murder of Brij Kishore. Since the motive is not at all established, appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. 16. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove any of the circumstances referred to above to connect the accused/appellant with the commission of murder of Brij Kishore. Therefore, appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge by way of acceptance of the instant appeal. 17. On the other hand, learned State counsel has contended that there is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The same are based upon cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is inimical to the appellant. Nothing has also emerged on record that appellant has been falsely implicated. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant and his companions and, thereafter he was found dead and further that he voluntarily confessed his guilt in the commission of murder of Brij Kishore. The motive also stands established. Even, otherwise the motive is such a thing which is primarily known to the appellant and it is difficult for the prosecution to explain as to what prompted accused to commit a particular crime. It is also well settled that when the complicity of accused in commission of an offence is established by other acceptable evidence, failure to prove motive is not so material. Learned State counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of appeal. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court with their assistance. 19. The case of the prosecution solely hinges on circumstantial evidence, as there is no witness to the occurrence. To base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however, grave may be cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however, grave may be cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it is based upon circumstances of last seen, extra judicial confession suffered by the appellant and the motive behind the occurrence. 20. As far as, contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to extra judicial confession suffered by the appellant, is concerned, no doubt, it is an admitted fact that PW5 Bishan Kumar is related to the deceased, but at the same time, he was a responsible person having status of a Municipal Commissioner. He has appeared in the witness box as PW5 and has deposed in clear words that on June 24, 2007, accused/appellant came to him around 10.00 A.M. and disclosed that he has committed a sin by causing murder of Brij Kishore, he be produced before the police as he was having proximity with the police officers. Immediately, thereafter accused/appellant was produced by him before the Investigating Officer, Jagir Singh (PW8), who recorded his statement in this regard. 21. It is not the case of appellant that he was not produced by PW5 Bishan Kumar before the Investigating Officer. Though, PW5 Bishan Kumar was subjected to thorough and probed cross-examination, but nothing fruitful to the defence could be elicited from him. Confessions/admissions made by an accused are admissible in evidence, even though they are rebuttable, as author of the statement acknowledges a fact to his own detriment. Otherwise also this principle is based on simple logic that no individual would acknowledge his culpability unless true. In the case in hand the confession was suffered by the appellant before PW5 Bishan Kumar with regard to commission of murder of Brij Kishore along with his accomplices and further that corpse was thrown in the bushes to screen away the evidence. The confession made by the appellant before PW5 Bishan Kumar can be said to be voluntary and is admissible in evidence. It has rightly been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while basing conviction of the appellant. 22. Equally futile is the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to last seen theory. The confession made by the appellant before PW5 Bishan Kumar can be said to be voluntary and is admissible in evidence. It has rightly been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while basing conviction of the appellant. 22. Equally futile is the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to last seen theory. PW7Jagdish has been running a dhaba where appellant accompanied by deceased and 34 other persons visited and took tea. Hot words were exchanged between the deceased and appellant and his companions over nonpayment of some amount allegedly owed by the deceased. The mere fact that PW7 Jagdish did not immediately report the matter to the police is itself no ground to discard or disbelieve his testimony. He has furnished an explanation that on June 15, 2007, he left for his village Gadhera in Rajasthan and returned after 20/25 days. Then he came to know that Brij Kishore has been murdered. He also got recorded his statement with the Investigating Officer and identified appellant to be one of the culprits. He has no animosity with the appellant and can be termed to be an independent person. Nothing has also been suggested or come out from his cross examination that the deposition made by him is not reliable. So, the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant and his companions also stands fully established and the learned trial Court has also rightly concluded so in this regard. 23. Now, coming to the motive part of submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The motive is always lying locked in the heart of assailants and it is not an easy task to cull out as to what was precisely the motive for commission of an offence. It is only known to the assailant as to what actually excited him to commit the crime. The motive in a case may be very meagre and in some other cases, there may be no motive at all, but for that reason alone, the prosecution story as a whole cannot be thrown out as false, or regarded improbable or suspicious. In such a situation, it is incumbent upon the Court to scrutinize and weigh the evidence with particular care and caution. In such a situation, it is incumbent upon the Court to scrutinize and weigh the evidence with particular care and caution. Though, in the case in hand, it is emerged that some shuttering plates were stolen by the appellant and sold to the deceased who was a scrap dealer; besides, working as a driver on a three wheeler. Though it is not fully established on record that shuttering plates and iron bars were actually stolen from construction site lying underneath the bridge, but on this ground alone, the accused/appellant cannot be exonerated especially when his culpability otherwise stands proved by other overwhelming evidence. It is also equally settled that when the complicity of an accused in commission of an offence is established, on the basis of reliable and cogent evidence, failure to prove motive pales into insignificance. 25. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, it stands amply proved on record that it was none else but the appellant who committed the murder of Brij Kishore. 26. In the light of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 02, 2009 and there is nothing on record to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court. 27. Accordingly, there being no merit in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed whereby impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 02, 2009 are upheld.