JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the appellant accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent - State. 2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant accused has, being aggrieved, challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.12.2009 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 100/2008 whereby the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case in brief is as under:-- "3.1. On the night of 27.05.2008, a 20-20 Cricket match was being telecast on the TV. There was no cable connection in Village Mera but there was a Tata-Sky connection in the house of one - Naval Sheth and therefore, all had gathered there to see the above match on TV. On the said night, the accused herein and the deceased Nirav were also there. It is the case of the prosecution that both of them had gone out together at the time of lunch hours in the cricket match, but only the accused herein came back. Efforts were made to trace out the deceased. As he could not be found, a complaint came to be filed by the complainant Chandrasinh Vajesinh before Sikar Police Station, Ankleshwar inter-alia alleging that from 27.05.2008 his son was not found. When calls were made on Nirav's mobile, it was ringing continuously but no one picked it up. 3.2. Hence, one application of a person missing was filed vide Janva Jog Entry No. 48/2008 on 29.05.2008. Locations of the mobile was traced out and it led to the mobile of one - Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod, when calls were made on the mobile of the deceased - Nirav. When Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod was interrogated, he informed that he had purchased the mobile from the accused herein - Jagdish nearly two and half months ago from the date of the incident. When Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod was interrogated, he informed that he had purchased the mobile from the accused herein - Jagdish nearly two and half months ago from the date of the incident. The accused was interrogated and he informed the police authorities that he had already committed murder of Nirav. The accused also showed the place of incident and the dead body was recovered in a very decomposed state with the worn clothes and also the wire used in commission of the crime. Subsequently, another sickle type instrument used in the offence was also recovered. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem, several panchnamas were prepared and the seized articles were sent to the FSL for examination. The blood on the clothes were of 'O' group and the blood found on the wire was of the same group. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was having a love affair with a lady called Nilam and the deceased also had an affair with same lady. Hence, with the intention of trying to win over Nilam, the accused had caused the death of the deceased. 3.3. The chargesheet came to be filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 100/2008 and it was placed for trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch where charges were framed. 3.4. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-- Particulars Exhibit Panch Witness Shaileshbhai, Ramanlal Parmar 7 Panch witness Upendrasinh,  Pravinsinh Dodiya 9 Panch witness Arvindbhai Manjibhai 21 Panch witness Manishkumar, Janeshkumar Joshi 23 Panch witness Jashwantsinh, Karshanbhai Parmar 25 Panch witness Mukeshbhai, Karshanbhai Patel 28 Complainant Chandrasinh Vajesinh 31 Witness Chanabhai Narpatbhai Vasava 32 Witness Natvarsinh Chatrasinh Solanki 34 Witness Khumansinh Bhikhabhai Solanki 36 Witness Hirenkumar Ramanlal Shah 37 Witness Nilamben Bharatsinh Solanki 38 Witness Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod 39 Witness Pradipsinh Narpatsinh Solanki 40 Witness Mayurdwajsinh Pravinsinh 41 Head Constable Ratilal Mohanbhai 45 ASI Mathursinh Ratansinh 49 Circle Officer, Valiya – Mansukhbhai Shankarbhai Vasava 53 Asst. Head Constable Dipakchandra Mohanlal 56 Investigating Officer Dilipbhai Rameshchandra Agrawat 57 Scientific Officer Nikunj Narharibhai Brahmbhatt 63 Dr. Head Constable Dipakchandra Mohanlal 56 Investigating Officer Dilipbhai Rameshchandra Agrawat 57 Scientific Officer Nikunj Narharibhai Brahmbhatt 63 Dr. Bhaumesh Mukeshbhai (Medical Officer, Surat) 66 Arunkumar Kamlakar Thakrey (Divisional Engineer – BSNL) 70 Head Constable Bharatsinh Khumansinh 75 Witness Shyamsundar Babulal Shah 78 Investigating Officer Hasmukh Keshavbhai Chauhan (DSP) 80 The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidence, some of them are:-- Particulars Exhibit Panchnama regarding seizure of mobile 8 The signed slips (of the panchas) from the muddamal 10 to 18, 26, 30 Panchnama of the scene of offence 19 Panchnama of the position of the body of the accused 20 Discovery panchnama of the scene of offence 22 Inquest panchnama 24 Panchnama of the seizure of the T-shirt of the accused 27 Panchnama of the seizure of the pant of the accused 29 Advertisement of missing person given by the deceased’s uncle at Valiya Police Station 35 Copy of registration of Janva Jog Entry No. 48/08 46 Extract of the Station Diary Entry No.10 of Valiya Police Station 47 Yadi regarding handing over of Janva Jog Entry No. 48/08 for investigation 48 Yadi regarding the location the presence of the deceased’s mobile written by ASI, Valiya Police Station to the Police Commissioner, Bharuch 50 Yadi regarding the advertisement on TV to be given qua the deceased written by the ASI, Valiya Police Station. 51 Printout of Mobile No. 94274 – 78640 52 Yadi written for preparation of map of the scene of offence by the investigating Officer to the Taluka Development Officer, Valiya 54 Map of scene of offence 55 Extract of the Station Diary Entry No. 13 of Valiya Police Station 58 Yadi written by the Investigating Officer to the Medical Officer, Valiya to be present at the scene of offence 59 Yadi written by the Investigating Officer to the Scientific Officer to be present at the scene of offence 60 Yadi written for filling of the inquest by the Investigating Officer to the learned Executive Magistrate, Valiya 61 The map prepared in relation to Janva Jog Entry No.48/08 62 FSL Report 64 Receipt of FSL about the receipt of muddamal 65 Post Mortem Note 67 The PM Examination Certificate given by Civil Hospital, Surat 68 Final cause of Death Certificate 69 Printout of Mobile No. 9428587288 71 Extract of Entry No. 7 of the Station Diary of Valiya Police Station 76 Bill of ‘Sukhi Sansaar Electronics’ 79 Yadi written by the Nayab Police Commissioner, Ankleshwar for registration of offence to the PSO, Valiya 81 Forwarding letter 82 – 83 FSL Report 85 3.5. At the end of the trial, the learned Principal Sessions Judge passed the judgment and order as aforesaid." 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant - accused Mr. Ramnandan Singh has submitted that the Janva Jog entry does not reflect that the deceased Nirav Kumar was last seen with the present accused and it is not reflected in the said entry that the deceased was watching the cricket match and then, subsequently he was found missing. It is further submitted that the mobile bill was not submitted alongwith the Janva Jog entry as nothing is stated regarding mobile bill in the Janva Jog entry and the Janva Jog entry was given two days after the alleged missing of the deceased. It is also submitted that the mobile bill was also of a very old date, i.e. 18.05.2008 - only 9 days before the alleged missing of the deceased. This therefore, creates a doubt regarding the presence of the mobile and further, the mobile bill was not in the name of the deceased but it was in the name of Pradipsinh Solanki. This therefore, creates a doubt regarding the presence of the mobile and further, the mobile bill was not in the name of the deceased but it was in the name of Pradipsinh Solanki. It is further submitted that PW14 - Pradipsinh has clearly stated that neither the sim card nor the mobile was purchased in the name of the deceased. This witness has also admitted in the cross examination that he has not stated before the police that he had purchased the mobile 10 days before and therefore, the mobile bill is produced subsequently, and not at the time of recording the statement of Pradipsinh. Even he has not stated that the packing box of the mobile handset was with him and the IMEI number was in the bill. It is further stated by this witness that Natvarsinh Chhattarsinh was not his relative and he says that he was staying in his village and the panchnama of the mobile was not stated to him. This witness has also stated that the number of the battery is always shown alongwith the mobile but that was also not stated. Learned Advocate for the appellant accused has further submitted that the DNA samples were sent to the forensic expert for examination after blood samples and other samples etc. were taken from the mother and father of the deceased. However, the DNA did not match. Therefore, whether the skeleton found in the field belongs to the deceased or not, is debatable. The deposition of the Investigating Officer - Mr. Dilipbhai Agrawat states that the appellant was detained on 24.07.2008 and 25.07.2008 was taken to the place of the incident. However, he was produced in the Court only on 27.07.2008. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant that if the accused was taken to the place of the incident on 25.07.2008, there was no reason for the police to produce him before the Court on 27.07.2008. It is submitted that it transpires that the documents were prepared before the appellant was produced before the Court. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate for the appellant accused has placed reliance on the following decisions:-- "a) Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2008 SC 1184 . It is submitted that it transpires that the documents were prepared before the appellant was produced before the Court. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate for the appellant accused has placed reliance on the following decisions:-- "a) Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2008 SC 1184 . b) Keshav v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 13 SCC 284 and c) Rameshbhai and Another v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 12 SCC 603 ." Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires interference of this Court with the judgment and order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch and the same be upturned as the case purely rests on circumstantial evidence. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent - State has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment and order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch and has submitted the learned Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons to arrive at the conviction of the accused. It is further submitted that even if it is a case of circumstantial evidence, there are witnesses who have seen the accused and the deceased leaving together during the interval hours of the cricket match. Besides, the accused had sold the mobile of the deceased and he also remained absconding for nearly one and half months. It is further submitted that at this stage, the conduct of the accused also needs to be taken into consideration. As the accused was trying to gain the affections of the lady called Nilam, he had planned to eliminate the deceased who he thought was his competitor. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused and hence, the judgment and order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch requires no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case. Before proceeding any further, it will not be out of place to mention that though this is a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, the involvement of the accused has been found based on the mobile tracking and this mobile belonged to the deceased. PW4 -Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod has clearly stated in his deposition that he had purchased the mobile from the accused. PW4 -Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod has clearly stated in his deposition that he had purchased the mobile from the accused. Further this witness has also identified the accused in the Court. Based on the mobile No. and IEMI No. the involvement of the accused was established. The accused had also run away from the place of incident and was apprehended after one and half months from the date of the incident. Though the complaint was lodged late, the parents of the deceased did not suspect that the accused who happened to be known to the family of the deceased very well, and who was helped in his days of crisis with an amount of nearly Rs. 8,00,000/- for construction of his house by the family of the deceased and in such a case of a love affair with one woman itself, no one would have suspected that the accused could have murdered the deceased. Further, the slippers (chappals) of the deceased were thrown away by the accused at the place of offence and these were identified by the father of the accused. Besides, there were also some fractures noticed on the body of the deceased based on the conclusion of the Post Mortem Report. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case and that it was the accused only who had pre-planned and carried out a cold blooded murder. At this stage, it would be relevant to set out the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, which are at Paragraphs 45-46 of his judgement and order and the translated version reads as under:-- "Evaluation of the evidence produced by the prosecution:-- (45) It appears from the above discussion that the prosecution has relied upon below mentioned circumstances to prove the offence beyond doubt against the accused. (i) The deceased Nirav was found missing on 27.05.2008 at 9.30 to 10.00 O'clock in the night. (ii) Prior to his disappearance, he was seen alongwith the accused proceeding towards outskirts of village. (iii) When the deceased found missing, he had the mobile phone. It has come to known on 22.07.2008 through the mobile print out that Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod, the witness, was using this mobile and as per his statement he had purchased this mobile from the accused one and a half month of the incident. (iii) When the deceased found missing, he had the mobile phone. It has come to known on 22.07.2008 through the mobile print out that Rajendrasinh Ganpatsinh Rathod, the witness, was using this mobile and as per his statement he had purchased this mobile from the accused one and a half month of the incident. (iv) The accused has furnished such information before the Police and Panchas that he has killed the deceased with help of wire and blade in the farm of Sugarcane fields located in the boundary of 'Mera' village and concealed his dead-body in the farm of sugarcane. When discovery Panchnama was drawn on the basis of information given by the accused, the bones - remains of the body of the deceased, skeleton, etc. were found and wire, blade, slipper and clothes of the deceased have been found from the site of the offence. The father of the deceased has identified the clothes and slipper of the deceased. (v) It is proved from the medical evidence that the nature of death of deceased was a culpable homicide. (vi) The accused had love affair with witness Nilam and the deceased was also trying to develop relation with her and due to that, the accused feared that he may lose Nilam and due to it, the accused killed the deceased. Such type of motive has been established mostly. (vii) The accused left the village soon after the deceased got disappeared on 27.05.2008 and he was living in other village named 'Samni' at the house of his aunt and the Police called the accused for an inquiry from 'Samni' village after 1.5 to 2 months after the disappearance of the deceased. (46) Thus, all the above said circumstantial evidence have been proved by the evidences produced from the prosecution and if all the circumstantial evidences are looked together, it forms a complete chain of circumstantial evidences and all these circumstantial evidences together in sequence point only the fact that the deceased Nirav has been killed only by the accused person. Therefore, the accused becomes liable for the punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering the deceased. Therefore, the accused becomes liable for the punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering the deceased. It has also been established on the basis of all the circumstantial evidences produced by the prosecution that the accused had concealed the dead body in the farm of ten feet tall sugarcane fields after killing the deceased and left the wire there which was used in committing of the offence. He hid the blade used in the offence and chappal of accused in a ditch filled with water. Thus, the accused has committed a punishable offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code by making an attempt to destroy the evidences. It also get proved from the evidence on the record that the accused has also committed a punishable offence of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by taking away the mobile phone of the deceased, after killing him, and without the permission sold that mobile phone to other witness Rajendrasinh. In such circumstances, the accused has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as the prosecution succeeds in proving, the offence, beyond doubt, against the accused." In addition, the decisions as cited by learned Advocate for the appellant - accused would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of the above, the Appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.100/2008 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment awarded by the trial court shall not mean imprisonment till last breath and that the case of the appellant may be reviewed by the appropriate authority considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah v. State of Assam, reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373. The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. The accused shall surrender on or before 15th FEBRUARY, 2016, failing which the concerned Trial Court shall issue non-bailable warrant in the name of the accused to secure his presence to serve the remaining period of his sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail and bail bond, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.