JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No 1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 64/2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 1. Under Sections 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Both the sentences have been ordered to be undergone concurrently. 3. The facts of the case as summarised are that on 18.3.203, Ramesh Chand Sharma (PW.3) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) to the Police Station, Kotwali, Alwar. The said written report when translated into English reads as follows:- To, Sriman Kotwal Saheb Police Station, Kotwali, Alwar Sir, It is submitted that today at 6.30 AM, as part of their daily routine, our children were brushing their teeth on the roof and when they went to spit in the street, they saw a man lying there, who was bleeding from his mouth. They came to me and disclosed this fact. After getting the said information from the children, called a few people and along with them went to check on that person. There was an injury on his neck and he seemed dead. Blood was flowing in the drain. Report is submitted, action be taken. Applicant sd/- Ramesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Sharma, behind the Tehsil, Alwar dt. 18.3.2003 4. On the basis of this written report (Ex.P.1) a formal FIR (Ex.P2), namely, FIR No. 160/2003 was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC on 18.3.2003 itself. Inquest report of the deceased (Ex.P3) was prepared in the presence of motbirs. Site plan with its description of the place of occurrence (Ex.R8) was also drawn. The dead body was subjected to identification and Harsahai (PW.5), identified the body as that of his son Ramesh, aged 26 years. Seizure memo (Ex.P.5) of the blood smeared and control mud was prepared. Site plan with its description of the place of occurrence (Ex.R8) was also drawn. The dead body was subjected to identification and Harsahai (PW.5), identified the body as that of his son Ramesh, aged 26 years. Seizure memo (Ex.P.5) of the blood smeared and control mud was prepared. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Jurist at General Hospital, Alwar, on 19.3.2003 and the Postmortem report (Ex.P24) was prepared. Accused appellant Nandlal was arrested on 20.3.2003 vide arrest memo (Ex.P.34) and on the basis of information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.35, 36, 37, 38 and 39) regarding the Katar, weapon of offence, Disk wire (cable), three coloured photographs of Geeta d/o Jasram, his own shoes and some writings written in his own blood and addressed to Geeta were recovered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The recovered articles were sent to the FSL for examination. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant. Upon committal, on 11.7.2003, the learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, to which the appellant denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to support Its case, the prosecution examined twenty two witnesses, and got exhibited as many as seventy one documents. Statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Jasram as he was infatuated with his daughter. In defence, he got exhibited the statements of Harsahay and Durga Prasad recorded under Section 161 Cr.RC. 7. After going through the documentary and oral evidence, by the impugned judgment dated 13th November, 2003, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the whole prosecution story rests upon circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence. The order of conviction by the learned trial court was based solely on the recovery of Katar (Churra) (weapon of offence), three photographs of a girl named Geeta, three letters alleged to have been written by the appellant and addressed to Geeta, recovery of shoes belonging to the appellant and one Disk wire (cable). The order of conviction by the learned trial court was based solely on the recovery of Katar (Churra) (weapon of offence), three photographs of a girl named Geeta, three letters alleged to have been written by the appellant and addressed to Geeta, recovery of shoes belonging to the appellant and one Disk wire (cable). He further contended that the settled proportion of law is that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove a complete chain of evidence and each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by cogent, reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances should be such which leave no other hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand there is no complete chain of circumstances brought on record. The prosecution story is doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit of the doubt. 9. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that there is cogent and reliable evidence to prove the recovery of the weapon of offence, of the fact that the deceased was last seen with the accused and the motive of the offence. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to connect the present appellant with the crime and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned trial court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Before we deal with the contentions of the respective parties, the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, it would be appropriate to first consider the evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. From the facts of the case, it is clear that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. 12. The fact that the death of deceased Ramesh was a homicidal death is established from the Panchnama (Ex.P3) and the post-mortem report, conducted by Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhry (PW.15). 13. Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary (PW.15) in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 19.3.2003, he conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ramesh Chand, being the Medical Jurist at General Hospital, Alwar. He further stated that he had found the following 10 injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) Incised wound on Lt. Phool Singh Chaudhry (PW.15). 13. Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary (PW.15) in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 19.3.2003, he conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ramesh Chand, being the Medical Jurist at General Hospital, Alwar. He further stated that he had found the following 10 injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) Incised wound on Lt. side of neck in upper ⅓ of anterior aspect of 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm with clotted and un-clotted blood and staining of surrounding tissues. (2) Abrasion Lt. side of face 2.5 cm x 2 cm below left eye; (3) Abrasion on chin Lt. side of 3 x 1 cm (4) Abrasion on chin upon lip on Lt side of 2.5 x 1.5 cm; (5) Abrasion on Rt. side of chin 2.5 x 1 cm; (6) Abrasion on Rt. side of face near lip of 3 x 2 cm.; (7) Abrasion on neck upper part 5 cm x 1.5 cm in ant. aspect; (8) Abrasion on neck Rt. side in lateral aspect 10 cm x 1 cm in upper 1/2 (9) Stricture mark on neck below thyroid (hyoid) cartilage all around the neck of 34 cm in length and 2 cm in width with red faint colour; (10) Multiple abrasions on neck ant. Both lateral aspect of 2 x 1/4 cm to 1/4 cm ail around the neck in whole region which are 12 in number. 14. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were within 12 hours (fresh) of death. 15. As per the opinion of this witness, the cause of death was shock due to injury to the carotid artery of left side, sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 16. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the width of the weapon by which the injury was caused must have been minimum of 4 cm. The knife or the weapon must have been pierced directly, the depth of which must have been 3 cm. The weapon by which the injury was caused, must have had sharp edges on both sides. He further stated that the injuries on the face might have been caused by fingers and thumb.Evidence of last seen 17. The knife or the weapon must have been pierced directly, the depth of which must have been 3 cm. The weapon by which the injury was caused, must have had sharp edges on both sides. He further stated that the injuries on the face might have been caused by fingers and thumb.Evidence of last seen 17. (PW.1) Krishna and (PW.2) Suman Sharma have stated that on 18.3.2003 at about 6.30 A.M., they both were brushing their teeth on the roof of the house and when they went to spit in the street, they saw a man lying there. They informed their uncle Ramesh Chand, who then went outside to check on that person. 18. (PW.3) Ramesh Chand has stated that after being informed by the two girls about a man lying across the street, he went to check on him from the roof and found him bleeding. He then called the neighbours and submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar. Police recovered Hawai Chappals vide (Ex.P.6), took photographs of the place of occurrence in his presence. Formal F.I.R. (Ex.P2), inquest report (Ex.P.3), Memo (Ex.P6) about recovery of blood smeared and control soil also contain his signatures.As per the inquest report (Ex.P3), the deceased was bleeding from his mouth and nose and was having a sharp injury on the neck, which, too, was bleeding profusely. 19. (PW.4) Rambabu Sharma has stated that he saw the dead body which was lying in the street and blood was oozing out from the mouth. On their information, police came to the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex.P8) in his presence which contains his signature. Police also recovered one pair of Hawai Chappals vide (Ex.P.6) which also contains his signature. Memo (Ex.P7) was prepared which also contains his signatures. Blood smeared and control soil was recovered through (Ex.P6) which also contains his signatures. Photographs of the place of occurrence were also taken in his presence. 20. (PW.5) Harsahai has deposed that the deceased Ramesh was his son. On the day of Holi, his son Ramesh and Nandi @ Nandlal had met. He also stated that his wife had told him that Nandi had asked Ramesh to meet him early morning. Photographs of the place of occurrence were also taken in his presence. 20. (PW.5) Harsahai has deposed that the deceased Ramesh was his son. On the day of Holi, his son Ramesh and Nandi @ Nandlal had met. He also stated that his wife had told him that Nandi had asked Ramesh to meet him early morning. In the morning his wife had to go to a temple and when he had asked her as to where Ramesh was, she had replied that he might have gone to Nandi but his son did not return home the entire day. When his son did not return till night, he made inquiries and went to the house of Nandlal but was not able to find him there either. Then Nandlal made a phone call at the house of Nawal ji, told him that a pair of Chappals were lying at Kotwali and asked him to see the same. In the mortuary, dead body of his son Ramesh was lying. The Chappals were not Ramesh's. The police prepared body identification memo (Ex.P.9) in his presence, which contains his signatures. The dead body was handed over to him through Ex.P. 10. 21. (PW.7) Santosh is the mother of the deceased Ramesh. She has stated that on the day of Holi at about 10.00 in the night, Ramesh came to the house along with Nandlal. Nandlal asked Ramesh to wake up at 4.00 in the morning. Thereafter, Nandlal went to his house. The next morning when she woke up, she did not find Ramesh in the house. Afterwards, she went to the place of Devta. When she returned to her house the next morning, she came to know that Ramesh had been murdered. In her cross-examination, this witness has deposed that she did not ask Ramesh as to where he was to go with Nandlal. 22. (PW.6) Durga Prasad is the elder uncle (Tau) of the deceased Ramesh. In his statement, he has stated that he usually wakes up around 4.15-4.30 in the morning. On the morning of 18.3.2003, he was sitting in front of his house, and saw Ramesh and Nandi going together. He asked Ramesh why and where he was going somewhere so early in the morning, to which Ramesh did not reply but Nandi did, by saying that they were going to settle some urgent matters and would return soon. On the morning of 18.3.2003, he was sitting in front of his house, and saw Ramesh and Nandi going together. He asked Ramesh why and where he was going somewhere so early in the morning, to which Ramesh did not reply but Nandi did, by saying that they were going to settle some urgent matters and would return soon. On the next day i.e on 19.3.2003, information was received from Kotwali that if Ramesh could not be traced then come to Kotwali and see him. This information was given by accused Nandlal, who asked them to come to Kotwali and also asked about the clothes which Ramesh was wearing and whether Ramesh had returned to his house or not. After getting this information, 4-5 persons went to Kotwali and thereafter to the mortuary of the General Hospital and found the dead body of his nephew Ramesh. At that time, Nandi was with them. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that on 19.3.2003, he had told his brother that he had seen Ramesh and Nandi going together. He disclosed this fact to his brother at about 11.00-12.00 on 18.3.2003. He further stated that when Ramesh was passing by his house, he had a cycle with him, which was not recovered. From the evidence of this witness, it transpires that he saw the deceased Ramesh was going with the accused-appellant Nandlal. 23. (PW.8) Deep Chand in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the morning of Dhulandi, at about 4.30 he had gone Chabutra of his house and had seen his nephew Ramesh passing by on a cycle, accompanied by Nandi. He had asked Ramesh where he was going, to which, Ramesh had replied that he is going to the Bazar and would return after some time. On the next day, he came to know that Ramesh was murdered. The fact of Ramesh's murder was communicated to him by the accused Nandi over the telephone. Nandi went along with him and they saw the dead body of Ramesh in the hospital. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that when Ramesh was going, Nandlai was 5-6 steps ahead of him. He has also admitted the fact that Durga Prasad is his brother. 24. Nandi went along with him and they saw the dead body of Ramesh in the hospital. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that when Ramesh was going, Nandlai was 5-6 steps ahead of him. He has also admitted the fact that Durga Prasad is his brother. 24. From the evidence of this witness too, the same fact transpires that the deceased was last seen with the accused and that the information regarding death of Ramesh was also given by the accused Nandlal himself. 25. From the evidence of the above witnesses, it transpires that on 18.3.2003, Ramesh had gone out in the early morning with Nandlal and thereafter his dead body was found. As a matter of fact, before the occurrence took place, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the next day. 26. (PW.11) Bhagwati Prasad also supports recovery of Katar (Churra), who has deposed that the accused Nandlal handed over a Katar (Churra) to the police after taking it out from under the television set.Recovery of certain articles: 27. Reference may be made to the recovery of certain incriminating articles, which were also taken into consideration by the learned trial court for convicting the accused-appellant. They are as follows : 1. Three letters recovered vide (Ex.P11) from the personal attached of the deceased Ramesh at the instance of the accused. 2. Recovery of a Katar (Churra) vide (Ex.P6), weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. 3. Recovery of three photographs of Geeta vide (Ex.P16) at the instance of the accused. 4. Recovery of one pair of black shoes vide (Ex.P17) at the instance of the accused. 5. Recovery of one Disk wire (cable) measuring 4 feet 2 inches vide (Ex.P12) at the instance of the accused. Recovery of these articles has been proved by Shri Adhyatam Gautam (PW.21) who was the investigating officer in the case.This witness has stated that on 20.3.2003, in the presence of the accused and the motbirs, he recovered three letters from the personal suitcase of the deceased Ramesh which were alleged to have been written by the accused to a girl named Geeta, who later on handed over the same to the deceased. The witness further deposed that on 20.3.2003, he arrested the accused through arrest memo (Ex.P.34). The witness further deposed that on 20.3.2003, he arrested the accused through arrest memo (Ex.P.34). Accused voluntarily gave information (Ex.P.35) that he had concealed a Katar in his house. On the basis of this information, the Katar was recovered through recovery memo (Ex.P.14). Site plan (Ex.P.15) of the place of recovery was also prepared, which contains signatures of the accused also. 28. (PW.21) Shri Adhyatam Gautam has also proved the recovery of three coloured photographs of Geeta. As per the statement of this witness, on the information (Ex.P37) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, accused handed over three coloured photographs of Geeta from his suitcase, which were sealed vide memo (Ex.P.16) and the photographs are (Ex.P.18) to (Ex.P20).As per the statement of this witness, on the basis of the information furnished by the accused (Ex.P38), the accused produced one pair of black shoes from his residential house and the recovery memo (Ex.P17) was prepared which was signed by the accused also. 29. It is to be noted that during investigation the police got photographs of the dead body and one shoe mark. This fact has been proved by (PW.22) Pankaj. He has proved photographs (Ex.P.14) to (Ex.P.43) and negatives (Ex.P41 A to 43 A).As per the FSL report (Ex.P46), the shoe print found at the place where the dead body of deceased Ramesh was found, tallied with the right leg shoe of the appellant. 30. According to the statement of (PW.21) Shri Adhyatam Gautam, the accused furnished information (Ex.P36), regarding hiding of one Disk wire (cable) and got recovered the same from the drain, situated at the back side of the house belonging to Gurjarmal Ghasi Ram. A recovery memo (Ex.P12) was prepared following the recovery of this Disk wire (cable). All the recoveries have been proved by the motbirs also.Motive of offence: 31. To prove the motive of the offence, the prosecution has examined (PW.13) Geeta. This witness in her examination-in-chief has stated that the deceased was her Rakhi brother and the accused-appellant is cousin of the deceased by virtue of being the son deceased's aunt (Mausi). He treated her as his sister and she use to tie Rakhi. He had been coming to their house for the last 5-6 years and had been keeping his evil eyes on her. He treated her as his sister and she use to tie Rakhi. He had been coming to their house for the last 5-6 years and had been keeping his evil eyes on her. Because of this, she was forced to ask the deceased Ramesh to stop the accused from coming to her house. Ramesh had assured her that he would talk to the accused and that the accused would not create any troubles for her. She has further stated that the deceased Ramesh used to take her to the examination centre. On 12.3.2003, when Ramesh was taking her back, accused Nandlal came on a cycle and put a letter in her bag, which she handed over to Ramesh. On 19.3.2003, she came to know that somebody had murdered Ramesh. This witness has further stated that Nandlal used to look at her with lascivious eyes and the deceased Ramesh was annoyed with him and Ramesh said that he had scolded the accused. 32. (PW.12) Jasram is the father of Geeta. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that Ramesh was his nephew (Bhanja) in relation and Nandlal was the son of Ramesh's aunt (Mausi). For the past 5-6 years, Nandlal had been visiting their house with Ramesh and on persuasion by Nandlal s mother, this witness had asked Nandlal not to come to his house. 33. From the above evidence it is clear that there was a dispute between the deceased and the accused because of Geeta. Accused Nandlal wanted to meet Geeta which was objected to by the deceased. 34. The hand-writing on the three letters recovered from the personal attached of the accused is proved to be the accused's from the report of the hand-writing expert (Ex.P47). 35. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant has admitted it himself that he had written many letters to Geeta. He also admitted that he had handed a letter over to Geeta, written in his own blood. He also stated that he and Ramesh both were in love with Geeta D/o Jasram. 36. From the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that both the deceased and the accused-appellant used to go the house of Geeta (PW.13), who used to tie Rakhi to both the accused and the deceased. Appellant had gotten infatuated with Geeta and started looking at her with lascivious eyes. 36. From the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that both the deceased and the accused-appellant used to go the house of Geeta (PW.13), who used to tie Rakhi to both the accused and the deceased. Appellant had gotten infatuated with Geeta and started looking at her with lascivious eyes. He had also started writing love letters to Geeta, because of which, her parents had asked him to stop coming to their house. Upon receiving one such letter, Geeta passed it to Ramesh, because of which, Ramesh had confronted the accused and there was an altercation between the two of them and thus, the accused-appellant held a grudge against the deceased Ramesh. 37. As a result of the above discussion the following circumstances are established:- (1) That the accused was last seen alive in the company of accused and thereafter his corpse was recovered. (2) At the instance of the accused, one Katar (Churra) has been recovered. As per the FSL report (Ex.P.46) stains of human blood were found on it. (3) As per the post-mortem report, incised wound on the left side of neck was found on the person of the deceased. Further, the medical evidence suggests that the incised wound was caused by a sharp edged weapon. (4) At the instance of the accused, one Disk wire (cable) measuring 4 feet and 2 inches was recovered and as per the post-mortem report stricture mark on neck below thy old cartilage and multiple abrasions on neck in whole region were found, which may have occurred due to strangulation by Disk wire (cable). (5) Upon the disclosure statement of the accused one pair of black shoes was recovered, shoe mark on wet mud was found at the site of occurrence near the dead body. Photograph of the shoe mark was taken and as per the FSL report the photograph of the shoe mark tallied with right leg shoe recovered from the accused. (6) From the personal attached of deceased Ramesh, three letters were recovered. These letters were written to Geeta by the accused, towards whom, he was having a strong affinity. From the evidence, the letters were proved to be in the hand writing of the accused. (7) Three coloured photographs of Geeta were recovered from the attached of the accused. 38. (6) From the personal attached of deceased Ramesh, three letters were recovered. These letters were written to Geeta by the accused, towards whom, he was having a strong affinity. From the evidence, the letters were proved to be in the hand writing of the accused. (7) Three coloured photographs of Geeta were recovered from the attached of the accused. 38. From the evidence, it has been established that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased because of Geeta. The accused wanted to meet Geeta which was objected to by the deceased and this very grudge became the motive for committing the crime and thus motive is clearly established in this case. 39. After thoroughly evaluating the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the chain of circumstances in this case is fully established and there are no missing links in it. The chain of circumstances is so clear and established that it unerringly and clearly points towards the guilt of the accused. 40. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various decisions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court cited before us. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Ratansing @ Chinubhai Anopsing Chauhan 2014(2) SCC (Criminal) 238 it was held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, it is unwise to record conviction on the basis of scanty, weak and incomplete evidence. In the case at hand, the circumstance of last seen, the recovery of incriminating articles from the accused and motive behind the crime are fully established, leaving no missing links available to cast doubts on the stance taken by the prosecution and chain of circumstances is so complete that they unerringly and clearly point towards the guilt of the accused. 41. In the case of Nizam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2015 Supreme (SC) 848 It was held that the circumstances Indicating guilt of accused should he fully proved and must be conclusive In nature. In the case at hand, the recovery of Incriminating articles from the accused gets corroboration from medical evidence and FSL report, the motive behind the matter finds corroboration from the ocular testimony of witnesses as well as the letters written In the hand-writing of the accused and photographs of Geeta recovered from the accused. 42. In the case of Mohd. Aman, Babu Khan & Anr. 42. In the case of Mohd. Aman, Babu Khan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 SCC 44 , failure of the prosecution to establish that seized articles were not tampered with before they reached the bureau for examination can affect the merits of the case. Further, the evidence regarding Identification of shoe mark may be used only to reinforce the conclusion as to the Identity of culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence. In the case at hand, there Is no evidence on record In respect of recovered articles so as to create any suspicion that the seized articles were tampered with before they reached FSL. On the contrary, from the testimony of prosecution witnesses as discussed above, It Is proved that the seized articles reached the FSL without any kind of tampering. In the case at hand, the Identification of the shoe mark print is not the sole basis for convicting the accused. Only after taking Into account the cumulative effect of all the circumstances viz. evidence of last seen, recovery of Incriminating articles from the accused and motive having been sufficiently proved has the accused been convicted. The Identification of shoe print has been used as a circumstance to reinforce the conclusion of guilt of the accused based on other strong and fully established circumstances available on record. 43. In the case of Sunder and others v. State of Rajasthan 2015(3) RLW (Raj.) 2007 , this Court had set aside the conviction of the accused because the recovery of shoe mark was found unreliable as not only the relatives, but many people from the village had gathered at the scene of occurrence and therefore the court had concluded that the shoe marks of the accused and villagers might have gotten mixed up. In the case at hand, there Is no evidence to the effect that a lot of people had gathered at the scene of occurrence. On the contrary, from the evidence, It has been revealed that the dead body of deceased was found In a narrow lane between the houses. In the case at hand, there Is no evidence to the effect that a lot of people had gathered at the scene of occurrence. On the contrary, from the evidence, It has been revealed that the dead body of deceased was found In a narrow lane between the houses. As per the site plan (Ex.P-8), shoe mark was found near the dead body and the same had been proved to be the shoe mark of the shoe that was recovered from the accused, Apart from this, all the recoveries made In this case have been proved by ocular and documentary evidence leaving no room for any doubt on the prosecution story 44. In the case of Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh @ Ranne v. State of Rajasthan 2014(3) RLW (Raj.) 2033 , this Court held that unless there is some more material, it would not be proper to convict the accused only on the basis of recovery. In the ease at hand, though recovery of incriminating articles has been given lot of weight to convict the accused, it is not the only circumstance upon which the conviction of accused rests. The circumstance of last seen Is duly proved from material available on record, which Is further reinforced by the strong motive that the accused harboured to commit the alleged crime, Thus, the chain of circumstances in this case Is conclusive in nature, pointing only towards guilt of the accused. 45. In the case of Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (3) RLW Rajasthan 2089 and Sudesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2014(4) RLW Rajasthan 3177 , it was observed by this Court that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the accused can be convicted only if the circumstances are fully inconsistent with his innocence and the chain of evidence is complete. The evidence and material on record must lead the court to the conclusion that the accused was the only person who committed offence and no one else. In this case, the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence is fully satisfied. All the circumstances have been proved individually, leaving no missing links and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in the form of last seen, recovery of incriminating articles and motive lead to the conclusion that only the accused has committed the offence. In this case, the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence is fully satisfied. All the circumstances have been proved individually, leaving no missing links and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in the form of last seen, recovery of incriminating articles and motive lead to the conclusion that only the accused has committed the offence. The chain of circumstances is coherent and complete and leaves no room for any reasonable possible hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. 46. Thus, considering the circumstances discussed herein above, we are in agreement with the findings arrived at, by the learned trial Court, and uphold the conviction and sentence of accused.In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. *******