JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. This appeal is preferred by the accused/appellant no.1 Smt. Suman Chintaman Dhabekar and accused/appellant no.2 Satish Shyamrao Wadhai against the judgment dated 12th of March, 2004 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.345 of 2001. By this judgment, both the accused/appellants named above came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Both the accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 177 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, case of prosecution can be stated as under - Accused no.1 Suman was residing in village Mangli, Tq.Kuhi, Distt.Nagpur with her children while deceased Nandu Tidke was residing near her house and as such deceased and family members of appellant no.1 were knowing each other. On 18th of April, 2001, deceased Nandu returned home in the evening, after some time PW 3 Meerabai, mother of deceased, who was present in the house heard shouts of beating from the house of accused No.1 Suman and therefore, went to her house and found accused no.1 Suman abusing deceased where accused no.2 Satish was also present and both the accused were also found beating Nandu by stick and stone in the courtyard. PW 3 Meerabai, therefore, tried to intervene, however, she was pushed aside by accused Suman. Therefore, Meerabai went to the house of PW 5 Duryodhan Zodape, Police Patil and narrated the incident who assured Meerabai to reach to the spot immediately and thus she returned back to the house of accused no.1 Suman when she saw both accused taking deceased Nandu in a truck. PW 3 Meerabai, therefore, again proceeded to the house of Duryodhan and met him on the way and narrated him about said fact. PW 5 Duryodhan then visited to the house of accused Suman, however no one was present there. PW 3 Meerabai, therefore, again proceeded to the house of Duryodhan and met him on the way and narrated him about said fact. PW 5 Duryodhan then visited to the house of accused Suman, however no one was present there. In the background of above fact, it is further case of prosecution that on the same day after some time both accused visited Panchgaon Police outpost where accused no.1 Suman lodged report at Exh.11 to the effect that on that day when she was present in her house at about 8.30 p.m. deceased entered her house and on enquiring, said that he loved her and belonged to her community and will support her. In the meantime, accused no.2 Satish arrived in the house of Suman and asked deceased to go away, upon which quarrel took place between them and then accused Suman along with accused no.2 Satish, tied both the hands and legs of Nandu and were bringing him in a truck to Panchgaon police outpost, however, on the way Nandu jumped out of the truck and in that attempt came under the rear side wheel and died on the spot. 3. On receipt of said information, PW 1 Gangadhar Babre, Police Head Constable, visited the spot with the accused and found dead body lying by the side of the road and on the basis of strangulation marks on the body of which both hands and legs were tied suspected involvement of accused in commission of death of deceased and thus, lodged his report at Exh.12 and registered offence at Kuhi Police station, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the night on 19th of April, 2001 at 3 a.m. which was investigated by PW 6 Gunderao Dhone, P.I., during the course of which said Officer visited the spot which was situated on Umred road, and found dead body lying by the side of road with its hands and legs tied by the rope having crushed head injury, caused involving truck bearing Registration No.MWY – 6295 present on spot. He then drew inquest panchanama vide Exh.15 and forwarded dead body for Post Mortem under requisition Memo Exh. 31. The truck found on the spot came to be seized under seizure panchanama vide Exh.22. He then drew inquest panchanama vide Exh.15 and forwarded dead body for Post Mortem under requisition Memo Exh. 31. The truck found on the spot came to be seized under seizure panchanama vide Exh.22. On the following day, spot panchanama came to be drawn as per Exh.17 and both the accused came to be arrested. Under Seizure panchanama Exh.19 sticks, pieces of bamboo sticks and slipper came to be seized from the courtyard of accused no.1. On the same day, statement of witnesses including PW 3 Meerabai, PW 5 Duryodhan and others came to be recorded. 4. On 21st of April, 2001, blood stained clothes of accused came to be seized under seizure panchanama at Exh. 20 and Exh.23, respectively. On the same day, some portion of the tyre of truck having blood stains came to be removed and seized along with left side mudguard under seizure panchanama Exh.22. Clothes of deceased produced by P.C. Sarode along with rope came to be seized under seizure panchanama Exh.21. On 24th of April, 2001 all the seized muddemal articles came to be forwarded to Chemical Analyzer under requisition letter Exh.29 of which C.A. report are on record at Exhs.39 to 42. During the course of investigation it revealed that the truck involved in the crime was owned by one Ambadas Mushnani upon which accused no.2 Satish was working as a driver and had driven said truck to village Mangli and went to house of the Suman, where deceased was present and apprehending ill intention of deceased committed his murder by strangulation and then by crushing his head under rear wheel of truck by which both the accused then by visiting Police out post, gave false information to police of accidental death of Nandu, while attempting to jump out of truck. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Kuhi. In the course of time, case came to be committed for trial before the Sessions Court. Charge is framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 177 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exh.2 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of time, case came to be committed for trial before the Sessions Court. Charge is framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 177 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exh.2 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is the specific case of accused that on the day of incident since deceased Nandu after coming in the house of accused Suman was not leaving her house where he arrived with some foul intention, both the accused tied his hands and legs by rope and were taking him to police outpost in a truck, however, on the way deceased jumped down out of the truck and in that attempt came under the rear wheel causing his death. 5. To prove the charge levelled against the accused, prosecution in all examined six witnesses and has commenced its evidence by examining PW 1 Gangadhar, H.C. who has proved information given by accused to police at Exh.11 and his report at Exh.12, PW 2 Chudaman Lende, panch on inquest panchanama at Exh.15, however, he did not support the case of prosecution, PW 3 Meerabai Tidke, mother of the deceased, on the circumstance of last seen together, PW 4 Shakil Bhure also on circumstance, who has turned hostile, PW 5 Duryodhan Zopade, Police Patil, and concluded its evidence by examining PW 6 Gunderao Dhone, Police Inspector; the Investigating Officer. 6. Heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for both the sides, with their assistance, we have scrutinised the evidence and documents on record. 8. Admittedly, case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence coupled with theory of last seen. However, learned counsel Shri R.M. Daga appearing for the appellants has contended that from the evidence of PW 3 Meerabai as well as PW 5 Duryodhan, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that prosecution has established that deceased was in the company of accused immediately prior to his death. However, learned counsel Shri R.M. Daga appearing for the appellants has contended that from the evidence of PW 3 Meerabai as well as PW 5 Duryodhan, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that prosecution has established that deceased was in the company of accused immediately prior to his death. It is also submitted that according to its case both the accused visited Panchgaon outpost in the same truck alleged to be involved in this crime which is however, found present on the spot on the following day when the panchanama came to be drawn and has thus contended that if accused, according to prosecution case, had visited the police out post in the same truck, as per contents of Exh.11, then there is no substance in Exh.17, spot panchanama to establish that death of deceased was caused involving truck driven by accused no.2 Satish alone. On the aspect of C.A. report, it is contended that clothes of accused came to be seized from their persons after three days from their arrest and as such this piece of evidence is not convincing though according to C.A. report human blood is certified to be found on the clothes of accused as possibility of tampering thereof cannot be ruled out. As such, it is contended that in the absence of convincing evidence and any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, appellants cannot be convicted solely on the basis of last seen together evidence even if version of PW 3 Meerabai and PW 5 Duryodhan in this regard is believed. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Ukey has submitted that from the evidence on record prosecution has established all the circumstances including that of last seen together by bringing on record incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence which form such a chain of events which can permit to conclude that it is only the appellants who are involved in the present crime. 9. Having considering above submissions and in view of the fact that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and on the theory of last seen together, we had considered evidence of PW 3 Meerabai Tidke, who has stated that deceased Nandu was her son while accused no.1 Suman is her distant relation and accused no.2 was friend of deceased and were neighbors. On the point of incident, she stated that on 18th of April, 2001 at about 7 p.m. deceased returned back to home from the market and was sitting on a bench in the courtyard while she was in the kitchen, when she heard noise of quarrel and thus came out of the house and was informed by some boy that accused no.2 Satish was beating Nandu in the courtyard of accused no.1. She, therefore, went to the house of accused no.1 and saw both the accused beating Nandu by sticks and fists blows, whose hands and legs were found tied by rope. Hence, she attempted to intervene the assault. Accused no.1 Suman pushed her and drove her away from the compound and closed the gate. PW 3 Meerabai further stated that she thus went to the house of PW 5 Duryodhan, Police Patil to inform him about the incident and on giving information again returned back to the house of accused no.1. While she was returning she saw one truck going out of the village of which accused no.2 Satish was driver since prior to incident and has further stated that on the following day in the early morning police came to village from whom she learnt that accused killed her son. In the brief cross-examination Meerabai is suggested that her deceased son had visited the house of accused no.1 to outrage her modesty and his hands and legs were not tied which suggestions are denied by her. Except for this, there is absolutely no cross-examination to this witness nor anything is elicited from her evidence. Learned counsel Shri Daga appearing for the accused commenting upon evidence of PW 3 Meerabai has stressfully contended that from the evidence of this witness no theory of last seen can said to be established by any stretch of imagination as what is stated by said witness is that while she was returning to the house of accused Suman, she saw one truck going out of the village, which according to her was driven by accused no.2 Satish since prior to incident. It is thus submitted that from this piece of evidence it can only be said that PW 3 Meerabai had seen one truck going out of village upon which accused no.2 Satish was driver prior to incident. It is thus submitted that from this piece of evidence it can only be said that PW 3 Meerabai had seen one truck going out of village upon which accused no.2 Satish was driver prior to incident. It is thus, pointed out that from her evidence it cannot be said that said truck was occupied by accused persons along with the deceased. It is also contended that evidence of this witness is silent on colour of the truck though is not expected from PW 3 Meerabai to state about registration Number or its make. 10. Keeping submissions advanced on behalf of appellants, as aforesaid, we have considered evidence of PW 5 Duryodhan Zopade, Police Patil of village Mangla. He has stated that he knows both the accused as well as deceased and his mother PW 3 Meerabai. He has stated that on the day of incident he returned back to his house at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. from the market. Within short time PW 3 Meerabai came to him and informed that accused no.1 Suman was beating her son and asked to accompany her to whom he stated that he will come after keeping household articles in the house and asked her to go back, upon which PW 3 Meerabai went away. He further stated that within ten minutes he went towards the house of accused Suman and on the way met with Meerabai who informed him that accused had carried deceased in a truck to some place. He further stated to have visited house of accused no.1 Suman but did not find any one there. There is no cross-examination of this witness since declined, and as such his entire evidence goes unchallenged. Learned counsel Shri Daga while commenting upon evidence of PW 5 Duryodhan has contended that his evidence do not establish involvement of appellants in any manner in view of the fact that his evidence about Meerabai informing him that accused no.1 had carried deceased to some place is hearsay as Meerabai is silent on this aspect. It is further contended that even otherwise according to his evidence, what is stated by Meerabai is that accused no.1 carried deceased to some place, her evidence is silent on accused no. 1's carrying deceased in truck as well as about presence of accused no.2 Satish in the truck. It is further contended that even otherwise according to his evidence, what is stated by Meerabai is that accused no.1 carried deceased to some place, her evidence is silent on accused no. 1's carrying deceased in truck as well as about presence of accused no.2 Satish in the truck. It is also contended that accused no.1 Suman being a female it is not expected that she would drive a truck from village. 11. On having considering evidence of above witnesses namely; PW 3 Meerabai and PW 5 Duryodhan, prosecution can said to have established fact of deceased being present in the house of accused no.1 where he was subjected to beatings at the hands of accused after his both hands and legs were tied. From the evidence of PW 3 Meerabai, it has further come on record that while she was returning back from the house of PW 5 Duryodhan to house of accused Suman, she saw one truck going out of the village of which accused no.2 Satish was driver prior to the incident, while from the evidence of PW 5 Duryodhan it has come on record that PW 3 Meerabai on visiting his house has stated that accused no.1 was beating her son and that she requested him to accompany her upon which PW 5 Duryodhan asked her to go back and he will follow her within ten minutes and then while he was proceeding to the house of accused no.1 met PW 3 Meerabai on way, who informed him that accused no.1 carried her son to some place, he then went to house of accused no.1, however, did not find any one present there. Evidence of PW 5 Duryodhan about PW 3 Meerebai informing him that accused no.1 had carried her son to some place does not appear to be convincing since is hearsay evidence, as PW 3 Meerabai is silent to this effect. Evidence of PW 5 Duryodhan about PW 3 Meerebai informing him that accused no.1 had carried her son to some place does not appear to be convincing since is hearsay evidence, as PW 3 Meerabai is silent to this effect. However, from the evidence of Duryodhan prosecution can said to have established its case that PW 3 Meerabai, after visiting to the house of accused no.1 and finding that deceased was subjected to assault by the accused, visited house of PW 5 Duryodhan and informed him of said fact and on giving information immediately went back to the house of accused no.1, his evidence as aforesaid, is found consistent with evidence of PW 3 Meerabai, as already stated aforesaid, that while she was returning back from PW 5 Duryodhan to the house of accused she saw one truck going out of village while according to PW 5 Duryodhan within ten minutes he reached to the house of accused no1, and he did not find any one present there. 12. In the background of above stated evidence when evidence of PW 4 Shakil Bhure is perused, it is to be noted that, though he is declared hostile, has stated that he knows deceased Nandu and both the accused since they are resident of same village and residing nearby. According to him, the incident took place at about 8 p.m. when he was returning from his village and had witnessed quarrel which was going on in the compound of accused no.1. Evidence of PW 4 Shakil thus established incident of quarrel in the compound of accused no.1 at the material time. Though he has denied case of prosecution as suggested to him that in his presence both the accused tied legs and hands of deceased Nandu with rope and put him into the truck and carried him in the said truck, his above referred evidence establish presence of deceased with the accused. Prosecution has got portion 'A" from the statement of PW 4 Shalik, duly proved from the evidence of PW 6 Gunderao Dhone, Investigating Officer, at Exh.43 which reads thus : "In my presence, Satish Wadhai and Suman Dhabekar tied both hands and legs of Nandu Purushottam Tidke, with ropes when Nandu Tidke's mother came there to rescue him, Nandu asked her to go home. Hence, she went towards home. Hence, she went towards home. After tying Nandu's hands and legs, Satish Wadhai and Suman Dhabekar put him in Satish's truck and went away saying that they were going to take him to the police station." 13. Insofar as evidence of PW 4 Shakil is concerned, as aforesaid, and having considering the settled legal principles with regards to appreciation of evidence of hostile witnesses, by now it is settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in to. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2011 SC (Cri.) 120, reiterating the principle, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 16 has stated thus : "16. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in to merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof." In view of proposition as laid down as above, evidence of PW 4 Shalik together with Exh.43 certainly lends support to the case of prosecution, establishing involvement of accused, when considered with corroborative evidence of PW 3 Meerabai and PW 5 Duryodhan on record. 14. In the background of above facts, evidence of PW 1 Gangadhar Babre, Police Head Constable, when perused established that on 18th of February, 2001 while he was in charge of Panchgaon police outpost, attached to P.S. Kuhi, at about 8.30 p.m., both the accused visited the said outpost in a truck. He has identified both the accused to be the same and has further stated that in the outpost accused no.1 Suman gave oral information that while they were bringing deceased Nandu Tidke to the police outpost in a truck by tying his hands and legs, he tried to ran away by jumping out of truck and in that event died by coming under the rear wheel of the truck. Head Constable Gangadhar recorded said information and has proved it at Exh.11 and has stated that suspecting about the incident as to how a person if tied by both his hands and legs could jump out of the moving truck, gave information to Police Inspector P.S. Kuhi and proceeded towards the spot and found one person lying dead by the side of the road having his head crushed under the wheel of the truck. PW 1 Gangadhar thus suspecting involvement of both the accused to be responsible for causing death of deceased, and has lodged report against the accused as per Exh.12 at Police Station Kuhi. 15. Presence of deceased in the house of accused no.1 is established for the reasons when in his cross-examination, he has admitted that in Exh.11 accused no.1 has informed that on the day of incident deceased had come to her house and had quarreled with her. Nothing material is elicited from the evidence of this witness to doubt his version which on the contrary is found corroborating contents of Exh.11, lodged by accused no.1 Suman by personally visiting outpost at Panchgaon, informing that on 18th of April, 2001 at about 8.30 when she was in her house, deceased Nandu, who was residing in the same village, came and when she asked about his visit, he said "I love you, I belong to your community, I will support you". She has further stated that in the meantime accused no.2 Satish arrived with a truck in front of her house and by coming in her house asked deceased to go away when quarrel took place between them when PW 3 Meerabai arrived and tried to intervene to whom she drove away from the courtyard and thereafter both the accused tied hands and legs of Nandu by rope and by putting him in the cabin of truck proceeded to reach him to police chowky, however, on the way he jumped out of the running truck at some distance from Pardi locality at Champa, and died by coming under the wheels of the truck and therefore accused Satish by stopping the truck saw that deceased got crushed under the rear wheel of the truck and died on the spot itself. 16. 16. Exh.11 which admittedly has been lodged by accused with PW 1 Gangadhar Babre, Police Constable, when considered, corroborates the evidence of PW 3 Meerabai as well as PW 5 Duryodhan and cannot be lost sight of, which contains the earliest version in respect of the occurrence and in criminal trial the first version has its own importance for just decision of the case. However, it is important to consider if Exh.11 can be read against the accused and does not amount to confession of accused to police, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In that view of the case, from the contents of Exh.11 said document appears to be exculpatory and fact of accused giving information to police is admissible against the accused with reference to their conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. It would also be relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and as such can be used against the accused as evidence of conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. For relying upon Exh.11 reference can be usefully made to the decision in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 119 where in the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus - "Where the accused himself gives the first information, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is non-confessional, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant." On this point learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied in the case of Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. reported in 2015 Cri.L.J. 2418 where in para no.28 of its judgment it has observed thus - "The confession given by the accused is not the basis for the courts below to convict the accused, but it is only a source of information to put the criminal law into motion. Hence, the accused cannot take shelter under Section 25 of the Evidence Act." Having considering contents of Exh.11, thus, same since is found to be not an confession, can be duly considered as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. 17. Hence, the accused cannot take shelter under Section 25 of the Evidence Act." Having considering contents of Exh.11, thus, same since is found to be not an confession, can be duly considered as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. 17. Having considering above legal proposition, together with the evidence of PW 3 Meerabai, PW 5 Duryodhan and contents of Exh.11, as a whole, said evidence establish fact of accused being seen in the company of deceased at the material time and till he died of homicidal death which is established from the spot panchanama on record at Exh.17 and sketch map Exh.30, which are admitted documents, as from the spot panchanama it appears that incident took place at Champa shivar of Nagpur – Umred road, and blood stains are found to the west side of the road and near the tree which is at the distance from 4 ft. from said blood stains to the western side where pieces of brain matters are also found near the dead body of Nandu having crushed head, tire marks of truck are also seen near the pool of blood to the western portion below the road. Though contents of Exh.17 speak in respect of presence of truck Reg.No.MWY 6295 on the spot at a distance of 30 ft. to the southern side from the blood stains, those contents does not find to be of much consequence in view of prosecution case of both the accused travelling Panchgaon Police outpost in the same truck after the incident. In that view of the matter, said truck appears to be on the left side of the road since came back from police out post side. However, further contents of spot panchanama establish involvement of said truck in the offence as its front side left tyre and left side mudguard are found having blood stains. In that view of the matter, said truck appears to be on the left side of the road since came back from police out post side. However, further contents of spot panchanama establish involvement of said truck in the offence as its front side left tyre and left side mudguard are found having blood stains. Documents spot panchanama Exh.17 as well as sketch map Exh.30 when scrutinised carefully, established involvement of accused to have committed murder of deceased as dead body is found on the right side of the road proceeding from Nagpur to Umred and thus the case set out on behalf of accused of deceased while being brought to police outpost attempted to jump from the cabin of the truck and that event coming under rear side wheel of the truck does not stand for any reason as in that case the dead body should have been found lying on the left side of the road i.e. to the eastern side of the road and not on the western side. 18. Similarly, according to Post Mortem Note (Exh.32), which is also an admitted document, deceased is found to have sustained as many as 34 injuries stated to be antemortem, which are as follow - 1. Crush injury present over skull, vault and base fractured multiple pieces of bones seen all over the cavity. Pieces of brain adhered to the fractured bones, cranial cavity exposed to the exterior. Extravasation of blood seen along with the fractured bones. Head normal structured is completely distorted, and pressed laterally. 2. Graze abrasion present over left side of face, extending from left angle of mandible to left forehead 12 cm. x 6 cm. Reddish, directed downwards. 3. Graze abrasion present over left side of neck,, below angle of left medieval 4 cm. x 3 cm. Reddish, directed downward. 4. Contused abrasion present over right side of face, extending from right angle of mandible to nostril, right side of forehead, complete face of right side involved, 20 cm. x 15 cm. Reddish brown. 5. Linear abrasion present over right axillary region of length 4 cm. Reddish. 6. Patterned reddish contusion, two in numbers, present over right side of chest, vertically situated, two parallel lines seen, one of length 13 cm. x ½ cm. situated 1 cm. lateral to right nipple while others of length 10 cm. x ½ cm. along the right nipple. 5. Linear abrasion present over right axillary region of length 4 cm. Reddish. 6. Patterned reddish contusion, two in numbers, present over right side of chest, vertically situated, two parallel lines seen, one of length 13 cm. x ½ cm. situated 1 cm. lateral to right nipple while others of length 10 cm. x ½ cm. along the right nipple. 1½ cm. apart, bluish red in colour. 7. Multiple abrasions present over right axillary region in the area of 6 cm. x 5 cm. of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. to 2 cm. x 2cm. Reddish. 8. Three contused abrasion present over posterior aspect of right shoulder joint of size 4 cm. x 2 cm., 2 cm. X 2 cm., 1 cm. x 1 cm. Reddish brown. 9. Contusion present over, lateral aspect of right forearm, 2 cm. x 2 cm., Bluish. 10. contused abrasion present over middle ?rd, lateral aspect, or fight forearm 3 cm. x 2 cm. Reddish brown. 11. Multiple contused abrasion present over lateral aspect of right elbow joint of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. to 2 cm. x 2 cm., Reddish brown. 12. Contused abrasion present over posterior aspect of right forearm horizontal, 4 cm. above right wrist joint of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. Reddish brown. 13. contusion present over posterior aspect of right forearm, 1 cm. below injury no.12 of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. bluish, confirmed on out section. 14. Multiple contused abrasion present over posterior aspect of left shoulder joint, over scapular region in the area of 10 cm. x 12 cm. of size varies from 2 cm. x 2 cm. to 1 cm. x 1 cm., Reddish brown. 15. Patterned contusion, vertical, over lateral aspect of left forearm, middle ?rd, two parallel lines seen, 2 cm. apart of length 8 cm. each with breadth ½ cm., Bluish. 16. Multiple contused abrasion present over lateral aspect of left forearm of size 1 cm. x 1 cm. to 2 cm. X 2 cm., reddish brown. 17. Contused abrasion present over left infra scapular region of size 2 cm. x 2 cm. Reddish brown. 18. Contused abrasion present over left side of chest, below left nipple, 2 cm. x 2 cm. Reddish brown. 19. Multiple contused abrasion present over left infra axillary region in the area of 7 cm. x 6 cm. of size varies from 2 cm. x 2 cm. Reddish brown. 18. Contused abrasion present over left side of chest, below left nipple, 2 cm. x 2 cm. Reddish brown. 19. Multiple contused abrasion present over left infra axillary region in the area of 7 cm. x 6 cm. of size varies from 2 cm. x 1 cm., 1 cm. x 1 cm. reddish brown. 20.Contused abrasion present over left side of abdomen over left anterior superior iliac spine 3 cm. x 2 cm., Reddish brown. 21. Linear abrasion present over left shirr of tibia, 8 cm. Reddish. 22. Contused abrasion present over postero lateral aspect of right thigh 4 cm. x 2 cm. Reddish brown. 23. Contused abrasion present over right side of abdomen, over right anterior superior iliac spine, 3 cm. x 1 cm., Reddish. 24. Patterned contusion present over right side of back, obliquely placed, seen as two parallel lines, curved along posterior axillary line of length 25 cm. each, 2.5 cm. apart, 17 cm. away from mid line. 25. Multiple abrasion present over right scapular region in the area of 10 cm. x 12 cm. of size varies from 5 cm. x 2 cm. to 3 cm. x 2 cm. to 1 cm. x 1 cm. Reddish. 26. Multiple contused abrasion present over back in mid line, in the area of 10 cm. x 10 cm. of size varies from 5 cm. x 4 cm., 3 cm. x 2 cm., Reddish brown. 27.Graze abrasion present over left side of back, extending from L3 (lumbar vertebra) to T10 (Thorin vertebra) of size 28 cm. x 36 cm. reddish, directed downward. 28. contused abrasion present over left side of back at the level of L2 vertebra 5 cm. x 5 cm. Reddish brown. 29. Multiple contused abrasion present over sacral region in the area of 10 cm. x 10 cm. of size varies from 2 cm. x 2 cm. to 10 cm. x 10 cm. Reddish brown. 30. Ligature mark present over front of neck, on right side of neck, 6 cm. below symphysis menti (chin) in mid line 5 cm. below right angle of mandible, extending from mid line towards right side of neck, obliquely placed directed upwards and backwards and up to back of right side of neck, 7 cms. Below tip of right mastoid process, length of ligature mark 17 cm. x 1½ cm. below symphysis menti (chin) in mid line 5 cm. below right angle of mandible, extending from mid line towards right side of neck, obliquely placed directed upwards and backwards and up to back of right side of neck, 7 cms. Below tip of right mastoid process, length of ligature mark 17 cm. x 1½ cm. ligature mark dry, parchmentized, hard, brownish in colours, ligature mark absent over left side of neck and back of neck, ligature mark lies ½ cm. below thyroid cartilage. 31. Ligature mark present over right side of neck, 3 cm. below injury no.30, 11 cm. below right mastoid process, 8 cm. below right angle of mandible, directed upwards and backwards length 6 cm. x 0.5 cm., dry, hard parchmentized. 32. Ligature mark present over right side of neck, in between injury no.30 and 31, 3 cm. below right mastoid process, 1½ below right angle of mandible, 6 cm. x ½ cm. dry, hard, parchmentized. 33. Multiple abrasions seen over right side of neck in the area of 6 cm. x 4 cm. of size varies from 1 cm. x ½ cm. to 1 cm. x 1 cm. Reddish. 34. Lacerated wound present over base of chin, oblique 2 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep. Out of these injuries, injuries at Sr. No. 30, 31 and 32 are referred as ligature marks present over the neck of the deceased. No explanation is putforth as to in what circumstance deceased has sustained ligature mark on his neck and in the absence of any reasonable explanation and having considering the evidence on record of deceased having found in the company of accused immediately prior to his death, the only inference that is possible to be drawn is accused after causing homicidal death of deceased by compression of neck had crushed his head under the wheels of truck. The cause of death according to Post Mortem note is stated to be as head injury with compression of neck associated with injury to lungs and liver. 19. Above circumstance further established involvement of accused in the present crime specially in the absence of explanation by defence of deceased sustaining ligature marks over his neck which are stated to be antemortem injuries. Another incriminating circumstance against the accused is of blood stains found on the clothes of accused. 19. Above circumstance further established involvement of accused in the present crime specially in the absence of explanation by defence of deceased sustaining ligature marks over his neck which are stated to be antemortem injuries. Another incriminating circumstance against the accused is of blood stains found on the clothes of accused. As per C.A. reports Exhs.39 and 40, no blood group of blood of accused nos.1 and 2 and as per C.A. report Exh.42 of deceased could be determined as results are inconclusive. However, according to Chemical Analyzer report at Exh.41 Saree and petticoat of accused no.1 and shirt and full pant of accused no.2 are found stained with human blood for which no explanation is given by accused persons. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants in view of present appeal based on circumstantial evidence and as theory of last seen has referred to the decision in the case of Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 12 SCC 438 , Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014)4 SCC 715 , Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2009 AllMR (Cri) 2447 (S.C.) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and anr Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2006) 10 SCC 172 . The fact involved in the cases relied being distinguishing cannot be referred in the present appeal, as in the appeal in hand, from the evidence discussed above it is established that deceased right from his entering in the house of accused no.1 Suman at about 7.00 p.m. till his death which according to spot panchanama Exh. 17 has occurred on road, situated at the distance of 25 kms. from police outpost of which information was received by PW 1 Gangadhar at Panchgaon Police Outpost at about 8.30 pm. was found in the company of accused. As such, on considering evidence in its totality it cannot be said that there is considerable time gap between deceased having found in the company of accused and the time his dead body was found. 21. Apart from the evidence of last seen together, there is sufficient other evidence on record establishing link between accused and the crime which points to the guilt of accused and none else and establish the chain of circumstances which further established that prosecution has satisfactorily proved its onus to prove that the chain is complete. 21. Apart from the evidence of last seen together, there is sufficient other evidence on record establishing link between accused and the crime which points to the guilt of accused and none else and establish the chain of circumstances which further established that prosecution has satisfactorily proved its onus to prove that the chain is complete. For this purpose, we find it useful to refer to the decision in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sdarda Vs. State of Mah. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had laid conditions to be fully established before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence as follows:- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 22. In the circumstances and having considering that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is negligible, possibility of any person other than the accused being author of the crime is impossible. In that view of the matter, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would come into play. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlie Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in cases where certain facts are especially within the knowledge of a person. In the case of State of Rajashtan Vs. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlie Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in cases where certain facts are especially within the knowledge of a person. In the case of State of Rajashtan Vs. Kashi Ram, (2007) AllMR (Cri) 525 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 23. On going through the record thus, we find that accused has totally failed to discharge said burden and on scrutiny of evidence on record, we are convinced that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events which points at the guilt of the accused. Taking the entire case in its totality, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Resultantly, appeal fails and same is dismissed.