JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J. Appellant-Krupasindhu Dash was prosecuted by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balangir at Patnagarh in Sessions Case No. 89/37 of 2009 (State Vs. Krupasindhu Dash) for intentionally committing murder of his father-in-law-Murali Dash and concealment of his corpse punishable under Sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. and finding the guilt of the appellant too well anointed, learned trial judge convicted him for both the charged offences under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced him for imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand) and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further R.I. for one year on the first count and one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/-( Rupees one thousand) and in default of payment thereof to serve three months additional imprisonment for the second count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2011, which decision has now been questioned in the instant appeal by the convicted appellant. 2. The background facts as were slated in the FIR Ext.1, divulged during the investigation and deposed during the trial by the fact witnesses reveal that one Krushna Dash resident of village Kangaon had three sons, namely, Murali Dash (deceased), Bihari Dash/PW 2 and Sanu Dash/PW 18. Kanti Dash/PW 3 is the daughter of Murali Dash (deceased), who was married to the appellant resident of village Kutapali but since 5 or 6 years prior to the present incident she along with the appellant and children were residing with the deceased in village Kangaon. Informant Bhojaraj Dash/PW 1 is the son of Bihari Dash/PW 2 and hence, he is nephew of the deceased. The deceased was a beggar as he earned his livelihood by begging whereas the appellant Krupasindhu Dash was a carpenter by profession. Because of family feud between the deceased and the appellant that the deceased had left his house at Kangaon and had settled in an erected hut in village Benkera on a piece of land donated to him by Bilash Singh Bariha/ PW10 father of Drubdal Bariha/ PW7 since three years prior to his murder and was earning his livelihood by begging, albeit he used to visit his residence in village Kangaon on his cycle frequently. 3. 3. In 2005 appellant, a carpenter by profession, had committed the murder of one Chhalu Sa alias Sadhu Sa of village Kangaon and was booked in jail penitentiary and was released only after three years. After being released on bail/jail custody, he was coercing his wife Kanti Dash/PW3 to bring money from her father to meet his legal expenses in connection with that murder crime. The wife/PW3 although informed the appellant that her father is unable to meet the demand, yet the appellant continued to coerce her by pressing his demand. 4. Ten days prior to Nabanna, a festive occasion, appellant quarreled with the wife/PW3 for money and the wife assured him that she will ask for money from the father/ deceased. Later on when the father came to his house in village Kangaon, PW3 informed him about the demand raised by the appellant but the deceased expressed his inability to fulfill the demand albeit he told that he will pay next day Rs. 1000/-(Rs. One thousand only) after mortgaging ornaments of his wife, mother of the PW3. On his return to the house, the appellant inquired from PW3 regarding money and after being informed about what the father/ deceased had told to PW3, he became infuriated and at 3 a.m. in the dawn set ablaze the attires of PW3 and the ration card and left the house when PW3 told him to call her relatives. Following day, when the deceased visited his house in village Kangaon, PW3 showed her burnt attires and the card to him and narrated the earlier episode, on which deceased told her that he will come on following Wednesday to attend “Nuakhai”. Appellant returned to the house that night and inquired about the payment and on being informed about the conversation between the father and the daughter that he became enraged with anger and hurled a threat by uttering that he will see how he (father-in-law) enjoys meal of “Nuakhai”. A day prior to “Nuakhai” father did not visit his house in village Kangaon and hence PW3, accompanied with Sushanta, went to village Benkera to look for him but she found the cottage door locked and father absent and after her return from Benkera, PW3 informed about missing of her father to PW2, her uncle. A day prior to “Nuakhai” father did not visit his house in village Kangaon and hence PW3, accompanied with Sushanta, went to village Benkera to look for him but she found the cottage door locked and father absent and after her return from Benkera, PW3 informed about missing of her father to PW2, her uncle. Even on “Nuakhai” day father did not come to village Kangaon and consequently, sensing some untoward happening, informant/ PW1 nephew of the deceased, accompanied by Ram Prasad Mahanand/PW 4, Dayakara Das/PW5, with another lock and key, went to the village Benkera to search for Murali Das, the deceased. They contacted the villagers and owner of the piece of land and then broke open the lock of the hut where the deceased was residing and to their uttered dismay they found the house hold articles scattered and the Gullack (earthen pot to keep money) broken. Deceased, could not be traced out in the village and therefore, his hut was again locked by the carried another lock and key. Appellant too was found missing since a day prior to “Nuakhai”. On 5.9.2008 a rumor floated in the area regarding recovery of dead body by the side of Suktel River at Luhuren ghat and consequently at 3.00 p.m. informant and other villages went to the recovery spot and identified the dead body to be that Murali Dash(deceased), from the ring in the hand, ear ring and Rudrakhya Mali, which the deceased used to wear. The other villagers of Kangaon also identified the dead body to be that of Murali Dash, the deceased. 5. Informant Bhojaraj Dash/PW1, nephew of the deceased, thereafter got the FIR Ext.1, scribed through one Budu Bariha/PW15, covered a distance of 12 Kms. to Khaprakhol Police Station, district Balangir and lodged it at 8.00 p.m. on 5.9.2008 itself, which was registered as Khaparakhol P.S. Case No.74 of 2008 under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. naming the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, who was none else than the husband of his cousin sister/PW3. 6. Gouranga Charan Sahu/PW20, O.I.C. of Khaparakol Police Station, in whose presence the FIR was registered, commenced investigation into the crime, examined the informant, scribe/PW15 and other witnesses and then dispatched a message to the Superintendent of Police, Balangir for deputation of dog squad and also sent a requisition for sending scientific team to be utilized during the investigation. 6. Gouranga Charan Sahu/PW20, O.I.C. of Khaparakol Police Station, in whose presence the FIR was registered, commenced investigation into the crime, examined the informant, scribe/PW15 and other witnesses and then dispatched a message to the Superintendent of Police, Balangir for deputation of dog squad and also sent a requisition for sending scientific team to be utilized during the investigation. I.O. commanded Constable No. 448 S.K.Minj to proceed to village Luhuret to facilitate investigation and inquest. Arriving at the spot of the recovery of the dead body, I.O. prepared the site plan map vide Ext.11, examined the witnesses and thereafter prepared another site plan map vide Ext.12 regarding the river Ghat. Since the cadaver was in extremely decomposed condition and it was not possible to dispatch it to the hospital for postmortem examination, therefore, the Medical Officer, Patnagarh was contacted with a request to send the M.O. to conduct the postmortem examination at the spot. Scientific Team headed by Sri K.Patra, S.O. DFSL, Balangir also came to the spot. In the presence of the doctor and witnesses, inquest over the dead body was conducted and inquest memo vide Ext.2 was prepared. The dead body challan vide Ext.13 was issued along with the Command certificate Ext.9. The I.O. again visited the first spot with the scientific team who also submitted their opinion report Ext.14. Report regarding the visit to the second spot was also tendered. From the first spot, the I.O. seized one light green colour Kantha, one pink colour pillow having blood like stains, one broken earthen pot (to keep money in it), one old damaged lock with engraving Bolar-15 on it marked as M.O. IV was seized vide Ext.10. Seizure list regarding recovery of metallic ear ring, one metallic wrist ring, one Moti mala is Ext.8. Moti mala is M.O. IX and M.O.XIII is the ear ring. 7. Further investigation was conducted by R.K.Pattnaik C.I. of Police Patnagarh/PW21 who re-examined the complainant and other witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 16.09.2008 at 11.45 a.m., who made a confessional statement and expressed desire to get the articles relating to the crime recovered and his confessional statement was slated down on a separate sheet of paper vide Ext.4. 7. Further investigation was conducted by R.K.Pattnaik C.I. of Police Patnagarh/PW21 who re-examined the complainant and other witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 16.09.2008 at 11.45 a.m., who made a confessional statement and expressed desire to get the articles relating to the crime recovered and his confessional statement was slated down on a separate sheet of paper vide Ext.4. According to his confessional statement he had strangulated the deceased and then had tied his cadaver on his cycle with the help of a cycle tube and had transported it to the bank of the river where he had plunged it into the river. Since the accused also informed that he had concealed the deceased cycle in the house of one Surendra Dash, his brother-in-law, resident of village Khunapali, that the I.O. came to the said village and recovered the cycle and prepared its seizure list Ext.6. Accused had also led the I.O. and the witnesses to Jejeria Ghat where from under a Mahul tree near Ankel bush he had taken out the keys of the deceased hut which were seized vide seizure list Ext.5. M.O. I & II are the keys and the cycle is M.O. IV. Wearing apparels of the deceased were also seized in presence of the witnesses vide seizure list Ext.7. M.Os. X, XI and XII are those wearing apparels and napkin. Accused-appellant was got medically examined vide requisition Ext.15. Accused was forwarded to the court on 17.9.2008. On 14.12.2008 P.M. report, Ext.11, was received by the I.O. /PW 21. A prayer was made for examining the exhibits by the RFSL, Sambalpur through the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh and accordingly seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide forwarding report Ext.16 and Ext.17 is the report by the chemical examiner of RFSL, Sambalpur. Ext.18 is the photographs of the dead body snapped at the spot by the District Forensic Scientific Team. Completion of the investigation resulted in charge sheeting of the accused on 8.1.2009. 8. Dr. Santosh Kumar Swain/PW 14 had conducted P.M. examination on the cadaver of the deceased Murali Dash on 6.9.2008 and had prepared autopsy report Ext.11. According to this witness the deceased had a thin body built and the cadaver was in advanced stage of decomposition with bluish brown discoloration, maggots of pre-pupa and pupa stage were crawling all over the body. Santosh Kumar Swain/PW 14 had conducted P.M. examination on the cadaver of the deceased Murali Dash on 6.9.2008 and had prepared autopsy report Ext.11. According to this witness the deceased had a thin body built and the cadaver was in advanced stage of decomposition with bluish brown discoloration, maggots of pre-pupa and pupa stage were crawling all over the body. Both the palms were missing from the writ joint and both the feet were missing below the ankle joint. The penis and scrotum were missing probably due to gnawing by animals. There was no mark of ligature. On dissection of the front of the neck area presence of some deep blood clots present between the tissues surrounding the upper horn of vocal cord were noticed. There was fracture of hyoid bone. On opening of the skull during the internal examination, the same was found denuded free of sub tissues and brain matter was liquefied. On opening the thorax the cavity was empty, the heart, lungs, pleura and great vessels were undergone putrification and liquefiction. On opening the abdomen the internal organ of the abdominal cavity had undergone putrification and liquefiction. Cause of death, according to the doctor PW14, was asphyxia due to strangulation and 4 to 5 days have lapsed since the deceased was murdered. Viscera could not be preserved due to the advance putrification and liquefiction. The sternum bone was preserved for diatom test. 9. Case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal formalities by the committal court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 89/37 of 2009. Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Balangir, who was entrusted with the trial, charged the appellant with offence under Section 302/201 of the I.P.C. on 15.01.2009 and since the appellant abjured those charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried consequently to establish his guilt, his trial commenced. 10. Prosecution relied upon 21 witnesses to establish its case against the accused, out of whom informant Bhojaraj Dash/PW 1, Bihari Das/PW 2, Smt. Kanti Das/PW3 and Sanu Dash/PW 18 (all close relatives of the deceased) appeared as fact witnesses. Ram Prasad Mahanand, Dayakara Das and Iswar Podh PWs 4, 5 and 6 respectively and Bharat Das/PW 12 are the villagers of Kangaon, who had accompanied the informant to look for the deceased as well as for the spot. Ram Prasad Mahanand, Dayakara Das and Iswar Podh PWs 4, 5 and 6 respectively and Bharat Das/PW 12 are the villagers of Kangaon, who had accompanied the informant to look for the deceased as well as for the spot. Durbadala Bariha/PW7, Bilashsingh Bariha/PW10 and Amarsing Meher/PW 19 were the villagers of village Benkera, where the deceased was residing in a hut on a land donated by PW10. Sunil Kumar Minj/PW 9 and Dhubaleswar Dip/PW 11 were the constables. Dr. Santosh Kumar Swain is PW 14 where as the two I.Os, namely, Sri Gouranga Charan Sahu/PW 20 and Sri Ranjan Kumar Pattnaik/PW21 are the formal witnesses. Kahyamasagar Bariha/PW 16 and Ashok Behera/PW 17 had turned hostile. Budu Bariha, scribe of the FIR is PW 15. Besides the oral evidences of the aforesaid witnesses, 13 documentary evidences were also produced in the trial, important among them have already been mentioned herein above while describing the prosecution version. 11. Defence rested its case only on a plea of denial or ‘don’t know’. 12. Analyzing the prosecution case, which was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, establishing the links one by one, learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.3.2011, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has completed the chain of sequences and no missing link existed to exonerate the accused-appellant. Finding his guilt too anointed the learned trial judge, convicted him of both the charges framed under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand) and in default to serve one year additional imprisonment and also one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) and in default in payment thereof to serve additional three months imprisonment for the second charge, which judgment and order has now generated the instant appeal at the behest of the convict accused-appellant. 13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidences and circumstances that we have heard Mr. Rabindranath Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sk. Zafafull, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and vetted through the entire appellate court’s record and have scanned the evidences minutely. 14. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant lies in a very narrow compass. Rabindranath Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sk. Zafafull, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and vetted through the entire appellate court’s record and have scanned the evidences minutely. 14. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant lies in a very narrow compass. It is urged that there is no direct evidence on record and the entire prosecution version rests only upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not been able to establish conclusively the guilt at all as produced chain of circumstances remains incomplete to associate the appellant with the crime. Learned trial court instead of examining and scrutinizing prosecution version to fathom out the truth and separate the grain from the chaff has relied upon it pedantically and has convicted the appellant applying conjectures and surmises and hence impugned judgment is fallible. The appellant had no reason to commit murder of his father-in-law, who was a beggar and his fiscal condition was not unknown to the appellant and therefore he had no occasion to commit the murder. Nobody had seen the appellant on or around the river from where the dead body was discovered and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had committed the murder. No charge for theft or robbery was framed against the appellant and therefore, the prosecution allegation of ransacking the hut of the deceased and murdering him is not established. It is further urged that recovery was not made at the behest of the appellant and also no confessional statement was made by him and it was only because of suspicion that the present case has been foisted against the appellant by fabricating the evidences. It is next urged that unless the chain of circumstance in a case resting upon the circumstantial evidence is established rung by rung, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Wrapping up the submissions it is contended that the appellant’s appeal deserves to be allowed and his conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside and he should be set at liberty. 15. Arguing to the contrary learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sk. Zafarulla refuted the contentions and argued that there was enough motive of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. 15. Arguing to the contrary learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sk. Zafarulla refuted the contentions and argued that there was enough motive of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. His confessional statement coupled with the recovery of the articles connected with the crime and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with attending circumstances leaves no manner for doubt that but for the appellant nobody else could have been the perpetrator of the cime and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is infallible and should be concurred and the appeal, being bereft of merit, should be dismissed. 16. We have bestowed our thoughtful considerations over the rival submissions and have summated the evidences, facts and surrounding circumstances. 17. Law relating to cases based on circumstantial evidences has been more or less settled through catena of judicial pronouncements and what is common in all those decisions are propounded guidelines, from recapitulation of which, it emerges that in such cases (i) prosecution is required to establish each and every circumstance appearing against the accused by producing confidence inspiring cogent and reliable evidences (ii) circumstances so tendered must form a complete chain of sequence of events without having any missing link (iii) all the circumstances comprehensively taken together point out that it was only the tried accused who could be the perpetrator of the crime and nobody else would have committed it (iv) the circumstances so forwarded should not be capable of admitting any other hypothesis or prognosis compatible with innocence of the tried accused even on preponderance of probability ( v ) accused is entitled to all reasonable benefit of doubt (vi) if the chain of circumstances has missing links or is capable of drawing any other conclusion except the guilt of the accused, the accused is to reap the benefit of doubt for such weakness in the prosecution case and is entitled to acquittal. There is no dearth of decisions laying down such trite law both by the Hon’ble apex court as well as various High Courts and it will not be possible as well as advisable to take stock of all those decisions and therefore only as examplars some of those decisions by the apex court are noted below:- In Madala Venkata Narsimha Rao v. State of A.P., (2012) 13 SCC 679 it has observed by the Supreme Court as under :- “17. The law on appreciation of circumstantial evidence is now too well settled to bear any repetition. Suffice it to say that to secure a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. Each relevant circumstance must be proved like any other fact and upon a composite reading thereof it must lead to a high degree of probability that it is only the accused and none other who has committed the alleged offence.” In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373 the apex court has held :- “8. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, this Court after referring to various earlier decisions, formulated the following conditions to be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established based on circumstantial evidence: (SCC p. 185, paras 153-54) “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: [SCC p. 807, para 19 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] ‘19. … Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (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. 154. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence”. 18. Without burgeoning further, when the facts of the present appeal are vetted and summated within the ambit of above propounded law it emerges firstly that there was enough motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased as he was unable to bear the expenses of the murder trial which he was facing. Being a carpenter he had committed murder of a co-villager Chhalu Sa alias Sadhu Sa and was booked in jail penitentiary for good three years. Albeit he was released from jail custody before the present incident, but his detention must have caused immense damage to his vocation of carpentry job. In this respect, evidence of all the fact witnesses, who have testified against him and who were his closest relatives including his wife, is convincing and seems to be unblemished. It also emerges from their depositions that they had no earthly reason to foist a false case against him. To all these witnesses including the informant/PW 1, wife /PW3 and uncle-in-law/PW2 and PW 18 defence had not at all suggested any enmity and hence in absence of any reason to falsely implicate and nail-in the appellant it will be unwise to conclude that the motive assigned by the prosecution to the accused to commit murder is false. All these fact witnesses unerringly deposed that the appellant, after being released from jail was coercing his wife /PW3 to bring money from the deceased, who was her father and father-in-law of the appellant, so that the appellant may meet out his legal expenses to save himself from being convicted for life for the charge of murder. This too well corroborated evidences of fact witnesses leaves no room for doubting the motive attributed to the appellant for annihilating the deceased. This is the first and very significant circumstance against the appellant. 19. Another important aspect of immense significance is that the present incident of murder was not the first incident involving the appellant. Earlier also he had murdered Chhalu Sa alias Sadhu Sa and in yet another incident he had set fire to the attires of his own wife and the ration card. Thus there is no difficulty at all in concluding that the appellant had a criminal proclivity to commit heinous crimes. Earlier also he had murdered Chhalu Sa alias Sadhu Sa and in yet another incident he had set fire to the attires of his own wife and the ration card. Thus there is no difficulty at all in concluding that the appellant had a criminal proclivity to commit heinous crimes. Confidence inspiring corroborative evidences concerning his short temperedness psyche with tormenting thoughts of accumulating enough money to fight out the murder case coupled with motive attributed to the accused, which could not be dislodged by the defence, compel us to opine that reason assigned to the appellant to commit murder of the deceased is proved convincingly without admitting any other compatible explanatory story, which the defence has also not been able to divulge or suggest. However, since motive alone howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof and singularly is not enough to anoint guilt of the appellant, therefore to complete the chain of events, other incriminating circumstances have also to be considered and therefore we delve upon the third circumstance against the appellant and that is his confessional statement leading to discovery of incriminating articles associating him with the murder. 20. After being arrested by C.I. Ranjan Kumar Patnaik/PW21, second Investigating officer, the appellant had made a confession vide Ext.4 before him of his involvement in the crime as well as concealing of the keys and cycle belonging to the deceased at the house of one Surendra Das, his brother-in-law. Albeit his such an inculpatory statement of his being the murderer is not admissible in evidence being hit by section 25 of The Evidence Act but the exception of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, i.e., Section 27 makes his disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the cycle and the keys of the hut where the deceased was residing in village Benkera admissible and these are the most pivotal significant clinching incriminating circumstance against the appellant. Appellant was not on cordial terms with the deceased who was residing in a hut built by him in another village Benkera on a piece of land donated by PW10. Accused has not questioned the witnesses at all that he was on visiting terms with the deceased. Appellant was not on cordial terms with the deceased who was residing in a hut built by him in another village Benkera on a piece of land donated by PW10. Accused has not questioned the witnesses at all that he was on visiting terms with the deceased. He has not led any defence evidence also to contradict said fact and on the contrary, from PW1 himself the defence got it elicited that because of quarrel with the appellant that the deceased had renounced his house in village Kangaon and was residing in a built hut in village Benkera on a donated piece of land. How come then, he came into possession of the keys and cycle as the deceased who was missing since a day prior to the festive occasion of Nuakhai”. Disclosure statement by the appellant has not been proved to be extracted by force, coercion, threat or allurement. Investigating officer /PW21 has not been challenged seriously to cast a doubt on such a disclosure statement by the appellant. In view of no threat to such disclosure and also considering appellant’s statement u/s 313, who had no rival plea to offer nor even had attempted to throw a doubt on such a disclosure statement, we are unable to persuade ourselves to discard the prosecution evidence in this respect. Both the recoveries were in special knowledge of the appellant only and no-body else could have known that fact. Why appellant kept silent and did not offer any explanation is a very adverse circumstance against his innocence. 21. Another connecting link is the threat hurled by the appellant that he will see how the deceased enjoy “Nuakhai” meal, to PW3, his wife, who has not been questioned at all by the defence on the said deposition. Such a threat was a very natural conduct of a mentally whacked and worried man groping to be booked in jail cell for his entire life and all the time frisking to remedy the situation. His action of burning attires of PW3 at pre dawn period at 3 a.m. indicates that probably he had sleepless nights and all the time he was in deep mental pixilated thoughts how to resolve the difficulties. For such a man to take extreme step was not something impossible or unthinkable. After all, the deceased had not kept his promise to part away with Rs. For such a man to take extreme step was not something impossible or unthinkable. After all, the deceased had not kept his promise to part away with Rs. 1000/-(Rupees one thousand) to the appellant after mortgaging the ornaments of his wife. This circumstance is an additional link evidence against the appellant and assumes significance and the defence has not been able to create any doubt respecting it. There is not enough reasons for us to discard such a version coming out from the appellant’s wife who had no conceivable earthly reason to depose falsely against her husband. 22. Absence of the appellant since a day prior to “Nuakhai” is also link in the chain of circumstances which remains unchallenged. 23. Concluding we find that the prosecution has successfully knitted complete chain of sequences which unerringly is a pointer of guilt of the appellant without admitting any other hypothesis. Appellant has miserably failed to dislodge those incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidences and hence we are of the opinion that his conviction and sentence through the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference by us and resultantly we find no merit in the appeal which for the said reason is dismissed with affirmation of appellant’s conviction and sentence through the impugned judgment and order. Appellant is in jail, he is directed to serve out his sentence. 24. Appeal dismissed. 25. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Judge for its information.