JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER) 1. At the out set, it is to be noted that the accused was not granted bail by this Court when the appeal came to be admitted. However, when temporary bail was granted to him, he has not surrendered back to the jail authority, and in light of the judgment of this court, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The present appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 133/2008, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 302 of Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/, in default, to undergo further R/I for one year. The appellant is also convicted under sec. 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for three months. The appellant is further convicted under section 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for three months. The appellant is also convicted under section 135 of the B.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R/I for ten days, which is impugned in this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 That as per complaint of the complainant, on 12.1.2008, at about 5.00p.m., his son Miten had left the home informing his mother to come back after telephoning his friend. However, since he had not returned back till late night, the members of his family repeatedly tried to contact him on his mobile No. 9328237884 but there was no reply. Therefore, they have enquired from his friend circle and relatives, but no news of Miten was received till late night. On 13.1.2008, at about 9.15p.m., they had given information to Gorva Police Station. Therefore, they have enquired from his friend circle and relatives, but no news of Miten was received till late night. On 13.1.2008, at about 9.15p.m., they had given information to Gorva Police Station. Thereafter also, when the complainant had been going for searching his son, at that time, the person residing in House No. C- 32 of his society, telephonically informed that the son of the complainant has been murdered and his dead-body is lying near the wall opposite Choksi Petrol Pump, and therefore, he has gone on the site and showed the dead-body to the police. They identified it to be that of their son. Therefore a complaint was given declaring that they have no any suspicion as to who, when and for which reason committed the murder of Miten. 2.2 Therefore, during the course of investigation, it is found that Ketan Hasmukhbhai Soni, the present appellant had got registered marriage with the elder sister Harshal because they were in love. Since the deceased was having information that the present appellant had illicit relation with two girls and thereby deceased was lack-mailing the present appellant and had taken Rs. 2 lacs from the present appellant. The marriage of appellant with the sister of deceased has been fixed, and therefore, the appellant had demanded the money from the deceased but deceased was not returning the amount. Thereafter, the deceased Miten had called present appellant-accused at House No. 34, in Vimleshwar Society, Subhanpura for giving him the amount where there had been hot exchange of words and scuffle. At that time, appellant accused having been excited, had given two blows of iron pipe on the head of Miten, and committed his murder and tried to destroy the evidence by throwing the dead-body of the deceased near the compound wall behind Sai Nasta House, Near Subhanpura Bus-stand. That after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 133/2010. 3. Thereafter, the charge was framed at Ex. 5 against the appellant. The appellant – accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 133/2010. 3. Thereafter, the charge was framed at Ex. 5 against the appellant. The appellant – accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring the home the charge levelled against the appellant- accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses 1. PW-1 Ashok Bhagatrav Jadav ex. 25 2. PW-2 Harshalben Ashokbhai Jadav ex. 31 3. Pw-3 Jayantibhai Shivrambhai Patel ex. 36 4. PW-4 Lalitbhai Baubhai Agrawal ex. 37 5. PW-5 Piyushbhai Babubhai chavda ex. 38 6. PW-6 Rajendra Laxmanrav Malap ex. 39 7. PW-7 Vijaysinh Prabhatsinh Rathod ex. 44 8. PW-8 Ajaysinh Pratapsinh Rathod ex. 51 9. PW-9 Pradipgiri Rampyaregiri ex. 52 10. PW-10 Sunil Anvarbhai Vaghela ex. 55 11. PW-11 Vijay Pratapsinh Rathod ex. 61 12. PW-12 Mahendra Bachubhai Vaghela ex.62 13. PW-13 Vishnu Rameshchandra Sharma ex. 67 14. PW-14 Chirag Dahyabhai Makwana ex. 69 15. PW-15 Harshadbhai Chandrasinh Chauhan ex.70-A 16. PW-16 Maganbhai Jethabhai Hanseta ex. 71 17. PW-17 Ranjitbhai Ravjibhai Solanki ex. 75 18. PW-18 Rajubhai Punambhai Solanki ex. 78 19. PW-19 Manoj Trikamdas Thakkar ex. 79 20. PW-20 Mukesh Vasudev Makhijani ex. 81 21. PW-21 Mina Rajnikant Dave ex. 82 22. PW-22 Dr. Vaishakhi Yashwantrai Shukla ex. 87 23. PW-23 Gopalbhai Nagabhai ex. 91 24. PW-23 Bhadrashilaben Somabhai ex. 94 25. PW-25 Surendra Mohan Ramjilal Gupta ex. 99 26. PW-26 Prakashkumar Govindrav Argade ex. 105 27. PW-27 Gauravbhai Anilbhai Pandit ex. 115 28. PW-28 Dharamvir Shrirajmal Kaushik ex. 110 29. PW-29 Arvindbhai Manubhai Patel ex. 121 5. To bring home the charge levelled against the appellant-accused, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence before the trial Court. 1. Application for missing of deceased ex. 26 2. Complaint ex. 27 3. Certified copy of plaint for divorce filed by Harshalben ex. 29 4. Zerox copy of bill of Havmor restaurant ex.40 5. Inquest panchnama ex. 41 6. Zerox copyof I-card ex. 42 7. Zerox copy of licence ex. 43 8. panchnama of articles i.e. clothes, bottle, cotton thread etc. ex. 45 9. Signatures of panchas on muddamal ex. 46 to 50 10. Panchnama of scene of offence place in presence of FSL officer ex.53 11. Signature of panchas on muddamal ex. 54 12. 41 6. Zerox copyof I-card ex. 42 7. Zerox copy of licence ex. 43 8. panchnama of articles i.e. clothes, bottle, cotton thread etc. ex. 45 9. Signatures of panchas on muddamal ex. 46 to 50 10. Panchnama of scene of offence place in presence of FSL officer ex.53 11. Signature of panchas on muddamal ex. 54 12. panchnama of muddamal ex. 56 13. Signatures of panchas on muddamal ex. 57 14. Signatures of panchas on muddamal ex. 58 to 60 15. Panchnama of muddamal and places shown by accused ex. 63 16. Slip affixed on muddamal ex. 64,65,66 17. Panchnama of place where accused thrown his trouser ex. 68 18. Panchnama of trouser of accused ex. 70 19. panchnama of person of accused ex. 72 20. slip containing signatures of panchas affixed on muddamal ex. 73 21. slip containing signatures of panchas affixed on muddamal ex. 74 22. Panchnama of motor cycle and iron pipe ex.76 23. slip containing signatures of panchas affixed on muddamal ex. 77 24. Zerox of R.C. Book, Delivery Note and sale-deed of vehicle ex. 80 25. Yadi to FSL Officer for giving opinion about the house where incident occurred ex. 83 26. Report of first visit of scene of offence place ex. 84 27. Letter ex. 85 28. Preliminary report of scene of offence place ex. 86 29. P.M. Note ex. 88 30. Letter for P.M. ex. 89 31. Medical certificate ex. 90 32. Copy of station diary ex. 92 33. Letter ex. 93 34. copy of station diary ex. 95 35. Letter to higher officer about offence ex. 96 36. Letter written to Vodafon Co. ex. 100 37. Information and certificate given by Vodafon Company ex. 101 38. Letter for information written to BSNL ex.106 39. Information and certificate given by BSNL ex.107 40. Letter written to Reliance Tel. Co. ex.111 41. Call details of Reliance Phone ex.112 42. Call details of Reliance Phone ex. 113 43. Name & Address and call details of Mobile Nos. 9327111708 & 9328091622 ex. 114 44. Letter written to Airtel company for information ex. 116 45. Details given by Airtel co. of mobile No.9898477113 ex. 117 46. Computerized details sought by Airtel Co. ex.118 47. Yadi to FSL Van ex. 122 48. Preliminary report of FSL ex. 123 49. Receipt of handing over dead-body ex.124 50. Statement of Religel co. of the year 2007-08 ex. 125 51. 116 45. Details given by Airtel co. of mobile No.9898477113 ex. 117 46. Computerized details sought by Airtel Co. ex.118 47. Yadi to FSL Van ex. 122 48. Preliminary report of FSL ex. 123 49. Receipt of handing over dead-body ex.124 50. Statement of Religel co. of the year 2007-08 ex. 125 51. Letter written to D.C.B. Police Station ex. 126 52. Letter written to RTO ex. 127 53. FIR for missing of Hero Honda No. GJ 6BD 2169 ex. 128 54. Statement of Central Bank of India A/c No. 1211940255 ex. 129 55. Statement of Central Bank of India A/c No. 1211940255 ex. 130 56. letter ex. 131 57. Statement given by Bank of Baroda ex. 132 58. Letter to FSL Officer ex. 133 59. Report for receipt of muddamal ex. 134 60. Receipt of FSL ex. 135 61. Forwarding letter, report and Serological report ex. 136 62. Letter to FSL ex. 137 63. Letter to FSL for giving guidance ex. 138 64. Yadi to FSL to give opinion about motorcycle ex. 139 65. Letter to FSL to give opinion about parcel no. 9 ex. 140 66. Ravangi Nondh ex. 141 67. Receipt of muddamal dt. 3.3.08 ex. 142 68. Letter to FSL to give certificate ex. 143 69. FSL report & Serological report ex. 144 70. Notification of Police Commissioner ex. 145 71. Visitation report ex. 146 72. Photographs of dead-body and scene of offence place ex. 147 6. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded, in which, the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution. 7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.9.2010 held the appellant – accused guilty to the charge levelled against him under sec. 302, 201 and 471 of IPC and under sec. 135 of the B.P. Act, convicted and sentenced the appellant accused, as stated above. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara, the present appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard Mr. N.K. Majmudar learned advocate for the appellant and Mr Himanshu Patel learned APP for the respondent-State. 10. Mr. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara, the present appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard Mr. N.K. Majmudar learned advocate for the appellant and Mr Himanshu Patel learned APP for the respondent-State. 10. Mr. N.K. Majmudar learned advocate appearing for the appellant-accused has vehemently submitted that the evidence on record goes to show that the offence under section 302 of IPC is not made out, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence may be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed. Mr. Majmudar learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has erred in believing the prosecution case and evidence on record. He has further submitted that the judgment and order of conviction is based on improper appreciation of the evidence of prosecution and based on improbabilities and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Majmudar learned advocate further submitted that it is highly improbable that a person having height of 5ft 7 inch could be taken on motorcycle for about one kilometer. It is further submitted that there is absence of motive as it is not proved that the deceased had ever demanded any money from the accused. There are several missing links in the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court and only on incriminating statement of the accused, punishment cannot be awarded. He has further contended that the chain of incident is broken from day one as no one has seen the accused with the deceased and in the testimony of the mother of the deceased, she accepted in the cross-examination that all the three keys were with her, and therefore, also the accused could not have gone to the house from where certain incriminating links were found. It is further contended that only on the evidence of witnesses who have not fully supported the prosecution case, the appellant has been convicted. This testimony could not have been relied on by the learned trial Judge which is against the principles of appreciation of evidence under sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that when nobody had seen the deceased with the accused, the accused could not have been convicted. This testimony could not have been relied on by the learned trial Judge which is against the principles of appreciation of evidence under sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that when nobody had seen the deceased with the accused, the accused could not have been convicted. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, save and except, the interested witnesses, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. Majmudar learned advocate has relied on the following decisions: (1) Bahadul v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1262 (2) Mahmadkhan Nathekhan vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014)14 SCC 589 (3) Vijay Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2014)14 SCC 609 (4) Lakhanpal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1620 (5) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 (6) Daya Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2015 SC 2550 12. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Himanshu Patel has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Patel learned APP further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Mr. Patel learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there are no missing chain. He has contended that the deceased had gone to the place where the accused had access. The weapon used for the commission of offence was found from the place where the incident had occurred. There was washed blood stains found and acidic area was also found, and further more, this was the place which was not accessible to all which was shown by the accused, and therefore, he has heavily relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana, reported in JT 2015(4) SC 57. According to Mr. Patel, there is no missing link, and therefore, this Court may concur with the view taken by the learned trial Judge, and the present appeal be dismissed. 13. According to Mr. Patel, there is no missing link, and therefore, this Court may concur with the view taken by the learned trial Judge, and the present appeal be dismissed. 13. We have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. We have also read the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and also perused the charge framed against the appellant. 14. The principle enunciated by the Apex Court for case hinging on circumstantial evidence and the same culled out from the panchnama and the panchas turned hostile, what should be the approach of the Court in an appeal under sec. 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, where the accused has been convicted by the learned trial Judge for commission of the offence under section 302 coupled with sec. 201 and 473 IPC, has to be evaluated. The factual scenario as it emerges, there are three aspects; the seizure of the weapon of the assault; the report of FSL showing the blood stains matching with that of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused and the blood stains at the house. Mr. Majmudar learned advocate has tried to place reliance on authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Bahadul v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1262 , contending that merely because the weapon was taken out by the accused, it would not be admissible in evidence under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. The said decision cannot help the accused as in the said decision, the place was accessible to all, whereas, in the present case, as the factual scenario unfolds itself the place of offence and the place where the weapon was found, were not accessible to all, rather they could be known to the offence alone. The recovery of knife, blood stained clothes and dead-body, which was at the behest of the accused and as discussed hereinabove, the decision in the case of Dilipkumar Ramayanprasad Dushad & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2010 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana, reported in Jt 2015(4) SC 57 will not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge as far as the admissions are concerned. vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2010 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana, reported in Jt 2015(4) SC 57 will not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge as far as the admissions are concerned. As far as first aspect is concerned, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bahadul v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1262 , will not be of any avail to the appellant in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court cited by learned APP Mr. Patel in the case of Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana, reported in Jt 2015(4) SC 57, which is on similar facts, as they are, in the case on hand. There the case was slightly converse then the one on hand. In para-17 and 18 the Apex Court has observed as under: “17. In Yogendra v. State of Rajasthan [ 2013 (12) SCC 399 ], it has been ruled that the Court must assess the extent to which the deposition of a witness can be relied upon. The court must make every attempt to separate falsehoods from the truth, and it must only be in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to separate the grain from chaff, for the same are so inextricably intertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness must be discarded. Thus viewed, the version of PW-7 to the extent that has been stated hereinabove is totally acceptable and credible. 18. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning [See Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Anr. v. State of Andrha Pradesh [Jt 1993 (2) SC 559 : 1993(2) SCC 684 ]]. In the case at hand, it had come in the evidence that the accused -appellant was suspicious of the illicit relationship between the deceased and his wife. The accused has taken the plea that he was never married. It is noteworthy that the materials brought on record go a long way to show that after the death of his brother he had entered into the wedlock with his sister-in-law as per the tradition of the community, that is, ‘Kareva’ marriage. The accused has taken the plea that he was never married. It is noteworthy that the materials brought on record go a long way to show that after the death of his brother he had entered into the wedlock with his sister-in-law as per the tradition of the community, that is, ‘Kareva’ marriage. The said facet of evidence has really not been assailed or shaken. Thus, it has been established that there was suspicion by the accused that the deceased was having relationship with his brother’s wife and that had aroused his anger. The said motive further strengthens the case of the prosecution.” 15. In this case, as per the factual matrix, which would go to show that the case of the prosecution as it rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, has to be cogently and firmly established. They must be of definite tendency which would point to the guilt of the accused and accused alone, the circumstances which would be taken cumulatively must and must form a chain unbroken and no escapism from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and accused alone. This principle has been annunciated way back by the Apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of M.P. Reported in JT 1989 (4) SC 223. 16. In this case, the discovery appears to be credible. It has been accepted by the court below and there is no reason why we should discard the same. The weapon was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found stained with human blood. As the results were conclusive, the accused, in his statement under sec. 313 of CrPC did not give any explanation as to how the blood was found. This discovery positively further prosecution case in the facts of this case. We are supported in our view by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of John Pandian v. State reported in JT 2010 (13) SC 284. 17. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. This discovery positively further prosecution case in the facts of this case. We are supported in our view by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of John Pandian v. State reported in JT 2010 (13) SC 284. 17. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that there was no motive and in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the motive plays an important role, and for which, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahamadkhan Nathekhan vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014)14 SCC 589 , whereby, the acquittal of the accused was restored. The said decision of the Apex Court will not be helpful to the appellant because in the said decision, the doctor and ballistic expert have stated that there was every possibility that the gun injury would have occurred due to the accident, and therefore, motive was not there. In the present case, the factual scenario as it emerged before the learned trial Judge shows motive and we concur with the same for which the reasons given by the learned trial Judge namely; that the accused had stolen the motorcycle of the complainant who was to be his father-in-law. Used it for three years, and after selling his own motorcycle, he had replaced the number plate with his own. The second aspect is proved by certain bank accounts that certain moneys were paid by the deceased to the accused which shows that what the father came to know after the death of his son, is proved that his son knew about the illicit relations of the appellant with some other two girls and was demanding money and only with a view to see that the moneys were not to be further paid, the deceased was not returning his money. The appellant had all the motive to call him to the place of which he had one key with him. Thus, the decisions cited by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar cannot be helpful to him as the facts are quite different in the present case. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons while holding that there was motive. The learned trial Judge has not treated the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of CrPC as an evidence against him. The factual scenario as it emerges is quite different in the facts of this case. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons while holding that there was motive. The learned trial Judge has not treated the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of CrPC as an evidence against him. The factual scenario as it emerges is quite different in the facts of this case. Hence, the decision cited by Mr. Majmudar learned advocate would not apply to the facts of this case. 18. It is submitted by Mr. Majmudar learned advocate for the appellant that there are missing links in the chain of circumstances, and for which, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2014)14 SCC 609 , and submitted that there is insufficient evidence to implicate the accused, and therefore the conviction requires to be reversed. Mr. Majmudar learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Lakhanpal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1620 and in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 . The decision in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), wherein, the principles of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the condition precedent have been laid down. The said principles will also not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge as there are no two possibilities in this case. The murder has been perpetrated by the accused by a full-proof planning with all pre-cautions; as (i) he got the hand glows; (ii) he called the deceased or met the deceased at the house and he had kept the iron pipe present there, and (iii) he had covered his hands by glows while he was trying to destroy the evidence, and that is why he has been even convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC. The finding of facts by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be such perverse which would permit this Court to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Hence, the decision in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), which has been pressed into service would also be not of any avail to the appellant. The decision in the case of Daya Ram & Os. Hence, the decision in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), which has been pressed into service would also be not of any avail to the appellant. The decision in the case of Daya Ram & Os. vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2015 SC 2550 , more particularly, para 16 reads as follows: “16. We have duly considered the evidence on record and also the arguments based thereon. The case witnesses an incident of double murder of which PW-3 has been cited to be the only eye witness. It is a matter of record, that the deceased persons were the brothers of this witness PW-3, who coincidently is also the informant. The courts below on a correct assessment of his evidence, had concluded that he indeed was present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. Though the participation of the three of the accused persons, namely, Devi Lal, Chander Singh and Vidyadhar alias Didaru was not accepted due to absence of any blood mark in the lathis said to have been wielded by them, in our opinion, in the face of the overwhelming and impregnable testimony of this witness on the entirety of the events relatable to the incident, it is not possible to extend any benefit of doubt to the appellants on that count. Suffice it to state, that the ocular account of the incident presented by the PW-3 has been in graphic details. He did not vacillate in identifying the appellants. He also could relate the weapons of assault used by them. The injuries sustained by the deceased in course of the incident and those detected in the post-mortem examination are compatible with each other. The seizure of the weapons of assault vis-a-vis the appellants based on their statements of disclosure and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, also establish their irrefutable nexus with the crime. The plea of the decomposition of the dead bodies to annihilate the medical opinion also lacks persuasion. Noticeably, as per the testimony of the doctor performing the post-mortem examination, the time of death does tally with the one of the incident.” 19. The plea of the decomposition of the dead bodies to annihilate the medical opinion also lacks persuasion. Noticeably, as per the testimony of the doctor performing the post-mortem examination, the time of death does tally with the one of the incident.” 19. The Apex Court in the case of Arvindkumar Anuplal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012 Cri LJ 4007 (SC), has observed as under: “The recovery from the place of occurrence, the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused as stated by PWs 1 and 2, the theory of the deceased having run away from the matrimonial home not properly explained by the appellant apart from the fact that no steps were taken by him to trace his wife, the weapon used, namely, the knife containing blood stains, that the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased, that as per the version of PW-5, the post-mortem doctor, the death was homicidal and that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon marked in the case, that he appellant wanted to flee from the town itself.” 20. PW-3 Jayantibhai Shivrambhai Patel Ex. 36 has been declared hostile witness by the prosecution. After he was declared as hostile witness, he has accepted that “it is true that on 16.2.2008 the police has recorded his statement and in his statement, he stated that accused had purchased two gunny bags from his shop,” and that is how the accused has been identified to have purchased the gunny bags. The story is complete in all respects. 21. In the case of Paulmeli and another vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu thro’ Inspector of Police, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 90 , in paragraphs no. 20 to 22, the Apex Court has observed as under: “20. Paulmeli (PW2) has supported the case of the prosecution so far as the present appellants are concerned. He was declared hostile when he did not name the other accused, who stood acquitted by the courts below and there could be no difficulty to accept this deposition to that extent. 21. This Court in Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. While dealing with the issue held: (SCC pp 786-87, para 23) “23. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examine him. 21. This Court in Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. While dealing with the issue held: (SCC pp 786-87, para 23) “23. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examine him. ‘6....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.’ 22. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, Subbu Singh v. State, C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi). Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and the relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. 22. In the case of Birju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 421 , in paragraph no. 9 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “9. PWs 1 to 4 and 7 fully and completely supported the case of the prosecution. PW 1, the grandfather of the child, PWs 2, 3, 4 and 7 have depicted an eye-to-eye picture of what transpired on the fateful day. Their version is consistent and highly reliable. The eyewitnesses’ version is fully corroborated with the post-mortem and FSL reports. PW 6, of course, has been declared as hostile, but the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole and the relevant parts thereof, which are admissible in law, can be used, either by the prosecution or the defence. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.” 23. In the case of Veer Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 455 , in paragraphs no. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.” 23. In the case of Veer Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 455 , in paragraphs no. 18 & 19, the Apex Court has observed as under: “18. Hazoor Singh has been examined as PW 5 and in his examination-in-chief he has stated that on the occurrence night he heard the noise of firing coupled with screaming cries from the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and he went to the house of Jassa Singh and both of them went to the house of Gurdip Singh who accompanied them by taking gun and torch and when they went near the house of Shisha Singh they saw several men and he could not identify any of them and Harbans Kaur met them there and told them that Kartar Singha nd other assailants have attacked them. At this point of time he was declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination he stated that Gurdip Singh had lodged the complaint about the occurrence in the police station and when Harbans Kaur narrated the occurrence, he was also present at the place and on the request of Jarbands Kaur he went to the tubewell and found Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh lying dead and he informed Harbans Kaur about the same and she became unconscious. 19. It is settled law that the testimony of the hostile witness need not be discarded in toto and that portion of testimony in the chief-examination which supports the prosecution case can be taken for consideration. In the present case, in the examination-in-chief itself PW 5 Hazoor Singh has admitted about his going to the place of occurrence along with Gurdip Singh and Jaswant Singh on hearing the noise of firing and cries emanating from the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and the narration of the occurrence by Harbans Kaur to them which led to lodging of the complaint. The above testimony of PW 5 lends credence to the testimony of PW 4.” 24. The evidence of PW3 whereby before being declared as a hostile witness, he has stated favouring prosecution which and that portion has been rightly believed by the trial Court. 25. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence of doctor PW-22 Dr. Vaishakhi Yashwantrai Shukla Ex. The evidence of PW3 whereby before being declared as a hostile witness, he has stated favouring prosecution which and that portion has been rightly believed by the trial Court. 25. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence of doctor PW-22 Dr. Vaishakhi Yashwantrai Shukla Ex. 87 who was at S.S.G. hospital. She has testified the fact that the injuries could be possible with the muddamal weapon. The injuries mentioned in Col. 17 and 19 of the P.M. report, according to her, are possible with the muddamal weapon, which reads as under: “17. 6(six) lacerated wounds in head region on vault of head (top) as shown in figure adjoining serrated way, margins, both sides 2 cm long on front of head & 3 cm long on back of head, bone deep, 0.5cm broad each one, on removing the hairs and shaving off, the area around the injuries does not shown contusion, only the upper & lower margins, walls & edges of each injuries shown lacerations and minute contusions in irregular in nature, red colour, dried blood an clotted blood in hair around injury. No other external injury of any type seen anywhere on the body. 19. Scalp hematoma both occipital regions; front & parietal regions. Fracture skull, multiple fractures, as per diagram adjoining comminuted type, many small pieces displaced, all bones of skull broken going into base of skull,in all 3 cranial fossa, injury to bone extends upto C1 C2 & C3 vertebrae. Massive subdural sub-arachnoid Haemmorhage Intra-cerebral All over brain including base and cerebellum cerebral laceration & contusion along fractured line.” 26. The finding of facts recorded by the learned trial Judge will not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge. He has discussed the decisions cited before him by the accused and has threadbare discussed the same and held that the circumstantial chain is proved. The finding of facts recorded by the learned trial Judge will not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge. He has discussed the decisions cited before him by the accused and has threadbare discussed the same and held that the circumstantial chain is proved. In para-45 till end, he has discussed how the chain is complete, namely the motive has been proved that the deceased was suddenly asking for money and if he would convey the illicit relation of accused with other two girls, then his marriage may not be solemnized, and therefore, the appellant had designed to do away with the deceased by calling him at the place which is not accessible to all, and deceased was given several blows on the skull and because of these injuries, he had lot of surgical wounds and because of that, to cover the same because of the oozing of the blood, surgical tape was brought and applied. The dead body was tied with a rope which is also been found. The appellant had also tried to destroy the evidence and cleaned the place of offence which is also found, and that is how the chain of events is complete and there is no missing of chain and we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Majmudar learned advocate for the appellant. Para-45 and 46 of the judgment of trial court coupled with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bodh Raj alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3164 and the principle enunciated by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2010, would permit us to accept the submission of Mr. Patel learned APP and the decision of the learned trial Judge cannot be found fault with, and therefore, we concur with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. 27. We are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and we are of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 28. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 28. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 133/2008 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial court, forthwith. 29. Since the appellant – ori. Accused is absconding, the Police Authority is directed to see that the appellant-accused is nabbed so as to suffer the remaining period of incarceration and pay the fine, if not paid.