Judgment : Per Virender Singh, C.J. 1. We have given priority to the instant appeal for its final consideration keeping in view the custody period of the appellant, which according to the noting of the Registry, turns out to be 19 years, 05 months and few odd days. 2. This Court has now been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has since been released from jail after serving the entire sentence including the remission. 3. In short the case of prosecution as one finds from the fardbeyan (initial statement) of one Mani Nath Mahto (father of deceased) recorded on 04-12-1995 at 13-30 Hrs by police inspector Rahe O.P is that at about 9 A.M the accused Mukteshwar Mahto came to informant's house and requested Lakhicharan Mahato (informant's son) to accompany him to his house to give medicine to his child. The further story of prosecution is that after departure of Lakhicharan to the house of accused, at about 9.30 A.M, one Abhimanu Mahto (P.W.-1) came to the house of the informant and informed that Mukteshwar Mahto killed Lakhicharan with ‘Basuli’ (a sharp cutting weapon), whereupon the informant along with his nephew Kartik Mahto rushed to the house of accused Mukteshwar Mahto and saw Lakhicharan Mahto lying restless in injured condition and blood was oozing profusely from his head. The informant thereafter laid his injured son on a cot and wanted to remove him to the hospital for medical treatment but injured Lakhicharan Mahto died. The informant found a blood stained ‘Basuli’ lying in the courtyard of the accused Mukteshwar Mahto. Meanwhile, Harihar Mahto (P.W.2), Abhimanu Mahto (P.W.-1), Jharia Mahto (P.W.-8) and Lambodar Mahto (P.W-3) brought the accused Mukteshwar Mahto, who was trying to flee away. It is further alleged that on being asked, from the wife of the accused Mukteshwar Mahto, she told that her husband killed Lakhicharan Mahto with Basuli. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, formal F.I.R 79/1995 dated 04th December 1995 came to be registered in police station Sonahatu under section 302 I.P.C and the investigation was started by sub inspector of police Maheshwar Jha (P.W.-9). 4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, formal F.I.R 79/1995 dated 04th December 1995 came to be registered in police station Sonahatu under section 302 I.P.C and the investigation was started by sub inspector of police Maheshwar Jha (P.W.-9). After completion of investigation, challan was filed against accused to face trial, he was, accordingly charged for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C for which he (Mukteshwar Mahto) stands convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide impugned judgment of learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner Ranchi under section 302 IPC. 5. The case of accused as one finds from the cross-examination of prosecution is simply denial of his complicity as well as his false implication in this case. During statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he answered to specific question (no.-2) put by court regarding intervening circumstances brought by prosecution on record showing his complicity in this murder that he was not mentally fit and under treatment at Kanke at that time (time of occurrence). However, he has not chosen to adduce any evidence in his defence. 6. Learned counsel for appellant pointed out certain flaws in the case of prosecution viz; There be no eye witness to occurrence and witnesses examined by prosecution have not been able to bring any definite circumstance pointing towards guilt of accused conclusively; It is admitted case of prosecution that accused-appellant was brought from outside of house at P.O by so called witnesses meaning thereby accused-appellant was not found present at P.O at the time of occurrence hence, appellant may be extended the benefit of doubt to disturb the conviction as already slapped upon him. 7. Per contra, learned A.P.P submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused-appellant. The circumstances proved by prosecution are of conclusive in nature and unerringly pointing out the guilt of accused. Hence the appeal is devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed. 8. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined altogether 11 witnesses. P.W.-1 Abhimanu Mahto, P.W-2 Harihar Mahto, P.W.-3 Lambodar Mahto, P.W.-4 Bidyadhar Mahto, P.W.-5 Hemlata Devi, P.W.-6 Dubraj Mahto, P.W.-7 Maninath Mahto(Informant) P.W.-8 Jharia mahto, P.W.-9 Maheshwar Jha, (Investigating officer) P.W.-10 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary and P.W.-11 Bharat Pd. Sahu. 9. Now let us take up the evidence of Dr Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.10) first, who was posted with Dr. P.W.-1 Abhimanu Mahto, P.W-2 Harihar Mahto, P.W.-3 Lambodar Mahto, P.W.-4 Bidyadhar Mahto, P.W.-5 Hemlata Devi, P.W.-6 Dubraj Mahto, P.W.-7 Maninath Mahto(Informant) P.W.-8 Jharia mahto, P.W.-9 Maheshwar Jha, (Investigating officer) P.W.-10 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary and P.W.-11 Bharat Pd. Sahu. 9. Now let us take up the evidence of Dr Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.10) first, who was posted with Dr. Niranjan Minz (who had conducted autopsy) in the same department of Forensic Medicine in R.M.C.H, Ranchi as he has deposed on oath. Dr Choudhary has proved P.M. Report in the pen and signature of Dr Niranjan Minz, which has been marked as exhibit-5 without any objection. According to P.M. Report, the following anti-mortem injuries were found over the dead body of Lakhicharan Mahato. Abrasion; (a) 5 cm X ½ cm on the front of abdomen, mid-line. (b) 4 cm X ½ cm front left chest Incised wound; 6 cm X 1 cm X bone deep on right franto parietal region situated obliquely cutting the underlying soft tissues and the right parietal bone completely and brain matter partially. There is presence of blood and blood clots in the cranial cavity. Lacerated wound; (i) 3 cm X ½ cm X bone deep on right upper lip with crack fracture axillary bone. (ii) 3 cm X 1 cm X soft tissues on the front of chin. (iii) 4 cm X 1 cm X soft tissues on the under surface of the chin. OPINION-Death is due to head injury. Oral evidence of all witnesses except formal witness clearly reveals that blood was oozing profusely from the head of Lakhicharan, who succumbed to injuries there, when he was laid on cot. Thus, we are of the view that prosecution has been able to prove homicidal death of deceased. 10. OPINION-Death is due to head injury. Oral evidence of all witnesses except formal witness clearly reveals that blood was oozing profusely from the head of Lakhicharan, who succumbed to injuries there, when he was laid on cot. Thus, we are of the view that prosecution has been able to prove homicidal death of deceased. 10. So for as the evidence showing the complicity of accused-appellant for committing the homicidal death of Lakhicharan Mahato is concerned, there be no eye witness to occurrence hence for convenience in re-appreciating the circumstantial evidence brought on record by prosecution, the witnesses are being divided in three categories i.e; (i) Witnesses, who reached immediately inside the house of accused having heard alarm raised by the wife of accused-appellant and witnessed the scene immediately after occurrence (ii) witnesses, who have adduced evidence to the effect that accused-appellant came at 9 A.M on the day of occurrence at the house of Lakhicharan Mahato and conveyed him at his house thereafter they came to know from P.W.-1 about the murder of Lakhicharan Mahato in the house of accused-appellant just after half an hour at 9.30 A.M and thus they rushed there and saw post-occurrence scene of P.O.(iii) witnesses, who had seen accused-appellant fleeing and thereafter they chased and caught hold of him. 11. Firstly; P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are the witnesses, who have consistently and categorically deposed that having heard alarm raised by none else but the wife of accused-appellant from her house at about 9.30 A.M on the day of occurrence, they rushed into her house and found Lakhicharan Mahto lying on ground with bleeding injuries on head while accused-Mukteshwar, who was having a blood stained Basuli in his hand, was caught hold by his wife. Here it is important to note that said witnesses have not only stated the above mentioned facts in examination in chief but also affirmed them during cross-examination. Here it is important to note that said witnesses have not only stated the above mentioned facts in examination in chief but also affirmed them during cross-examination. The above evidence proves two important events : (i) Independent witnesses had heard alarm raised by the wife of accused at/just after the time of occurrence and entered in the house of accused, when accused was present with blood stained basuli (weapon of assault) and thus this part of evidence is relevant and admissible due to applicability of the principle of res gestae embodied in section 6 of Indian Evidence Act in this case as alarm raised by the wife of accused is absolutely contemporaneous with the action of accused and hence it is part of real evidence. It has been observed in a case of State of Maharashtra Vs Kamal Ahamad reported in 2013 AIR SC 1441.“The rule that in a criminal trial hearsay evidence is admissible if it forms part of the res gestae, is based on propositions that human action may be so interwoven with words that the significance of the action cannot be understood without the correlative words and dissociation of the words from the action would impede the discovery of truth. It is essential that the words sought to be proved by hearsay should be, if not absolutely contemporaneous with the action or event, at least so clearly associated with it that they are part of the thing done, and so an item or part of real evidence and not merely reported statement.” In the case on hand the said rule is cent percent applicable. (ii) the direct evidence deposed by said witnesses to the effect that accused appellant was present holding a blood stained Basuli, while deceased was lying on ground with bleed injury on his head in the house of accused constitutes a strong circumstantial evidence unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused. 12. Secondly; P.W.7 (informant) supporting his earlier version (FIR) has stated that accused-appellant Mukteshwar Mahato had come at his house and conveyed his son (deceased) to his house at about 9 A.M. on the day of occurrence thereafter Abhimanu Mahto (P.W-1) came at 9.30 A.M and informed that Mukhteshwar had killed his son with Baasuli in his house whereupon he rushed there. During cross-examination nothing has been elicited to shake the above mentioned testimony of this witness. During cross-examination nothing has been elicited to shake the above mentioned testimony of this witness. P.W.5 is wife of deceased has also supported the said evidence in same vein and terms. P.W.1 has also affirmed that he was the person, who had gone to the house of informant and informed him about occurrence. Thus, the above three witnesses have proved a fact that deceased was conveyed by accused-appellant in his house and just after 30 minutes deceased was found lying in injured condition in the house of accused appellant. Since it stands proved that accused came to the house of deceased and conveyed him to his house and just thereafter within 30 minutes deceased died due to fatal bleeding injury on his head in house of accused-appellant, a judicial mind, which is an embodiment of reasoning will certainly be persuaded to reach to an irresistible conclusion that accused should either explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered death in probable & reasonable manner or should own the liability of homicide as Section 106 of the Evidence Act is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand which runs inter-alia, Burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge; “when any fact is especially within knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” But at the time of recording statement of accused-appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C he did not deny the incriminating circumstances showing his complicity in this murder rather he, for the first time during entire trial, told that at the time of occurrence he was not mentally fit and under treatment but without giving any supporting evidence on this point. Therefore, it can be unerringly inferred that accused-appellant had constructively owned the liability of this murder. 13. Thirdly; P.W. 1 has stated that when he was returning from the house of informant having informed him about occurrence, he saw the accused fleeing and added that Mukteshwar was chased and caught by Harihar Mahato (P.W-2), Lambodar Mahato (P.W.3) The witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8 have, by test of cross-examination, established themselves as they were the persons, who had chased the accused and caught hold of him. P.W.5 and P.W.7 have also corroborated the above fact by establishing the event that the accused was caught and brought at P.O by said witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8). P.W.5 and P.W.7 have also corroborated the above fact by establishing the event that the accused was caught and brought at P.O by said witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8). Hence we are of the view that prosecution has also proved the act of fleeing from village as the post-occurrence conduct of accused. As per u/s 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the post-occurrence conduct of accused is relevant, which unerringly communicate the guilty mind of perpetrator of crime. In the above circumstances we are of the view that post-occurrence conduct of accused-appellant also adds a strong circumstance pointing towards his guilt. 14. After rescanning the prosecution case in its right perspective, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has, no doubt, been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt vis-a-vis complicity of accused namely Mukhteshwar Mahato, in causing the murder of the deceased Lakhicharan Mahato with Basuli (sharp edged weapon). 15. The net result now surfaces is that the instant appeal is dismissed qua accused Mukhteshwar Mahato by maintaining his conviction and sentence as already recorded by the trial court.