Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1227 (RAJ)

Govind Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-08-29

DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dt. 12/3/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 68/2008 (93/2008) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) For offence under Section 363 IPC sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. (ii) For offence under Section 366 IPC sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment. (iii) For offence under Section 376 IPC sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment. (iv) For offence under Section 302 IPC sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment. 2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 11/4/2008 at about 8.15 a.m., Manohar Singh (PW-2) submitted a written report to ASI Bajrang Lal (PW-20) in village Barwa indicating that he came to Barwa with his family in connection of marriage of his brother-in-law. In night at about 8 p.m., they went to village Barwa in Banori (marriage procession) from house of his father-in-law situated at Bawra stand. After Banori procession, they returned at about 9 p.m. to the house of his father-in-law Rewat Singh. His daughter "S" (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity) was also with them and thereafter, she accompanied children. In night, they thought that she would have slept with children. In morning at about 6.30 a.m., Kishan S/o Mahesh Kumawat came to them and told that informant's daughter is lying dead near road. Thereafter, he and his brother-in-law Prabhu Singh rushed to the road side, where his daughter "S" aged 10 years was lying dead near a tree of Kheep at the corner of road. They saw injuries on mouth and head of the deceased and her pant was blood stained. Thereafter, he and his brother-in-law Prabhu Singh rushed to the road side, where his daughter "S" aged 10 years was lying dead near a tree of Kheep at the corner of road. They saw injuries on mouth and head of the deceased and her pant was blood stained. After removing her pant, it was noticed that she has been raped. Someone has raped and murdered his daughter etc. 4. ASI Bajrang Lal (PW-20) made his endorsement on this written report and sent the same to Police Station Udaipurwati with constable Tekchand for registration of crime, where an FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered on the above report being FIR No.73/2008 for commission of offences under Section 376, 302 of IPC. 5. During investigation, Panchayatnama was prepared, autopsy report of deceased was obtained from medical board, regarding rape vaginal swab was obtained after medical examination of deceased, site plan was prepared, samples of blood stained and control soils were taken from the place of occurence, clothes worn by deceased were seized, accused-appellant was arrested and report of his medical examination was obtained, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recoveries of clothes and shoes were made from the accused-appellant which were worn by him at the time of occurence and were seized, foot prints of culprit were obtained from the scene of occurence, blood sample of accused-appellant was taken for DNA test. Samples of soils, clothes of deceased and clothes, shoes, samples of blood, semen, saliva of accused-appellant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302, 376, 363, 366 of IPC. 6. Learned trial court framed the charges for above offences against the accused-appellant brought before it for trial. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. 7. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 53 documents. Thereafter, learned trial court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused- appellant did not produce any witness in defence and exhibited previous statement of witness Mamraj Singh (PW-10) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as Exhibit D-1. Accused- appellant did not produce any witness in defence and exhibited previous statement of witness Mamraj Singh (PW-10) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as Exhibit D-1. 8. After completion of trial, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant, he preferred the present appeal through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur before this Court against the judgment of the learned trial Court dt. 12/3/2010. Later on Mr. Vijay Poonia learned Advocate filed Vakalatnama for accused-appellant. 10. Mr. Vijay Poonia learned counsel for the accused- appellant contended that the prosecution has relied it's case upon the basis of the circumstantial evidences i.e. last seen and DNA typing evidence against the accused-appellant. The theory of last seen has been developed by the prosecution witnesses later on. From the written report Ex.P-2 submitted by complainant-Manohar Singh (PW-2), it appears that initially the complainant submitted the truth in the written report that his deceased-daughter returned to her maternal house and thereafter she disappeared but relying upon the information given by PW-3-Kishan Kumawat, the accused appellant has been implicated, whereas his name was not mentioned in written report submitted by PW-2 Manohar Singh-father of deceased. 11. Learned counsel also contended that PW-3 Kishan is the person who not only described the evidence of last seen of deceased along with the accused-appellant but has also found the dead body of the deceased lying on the road side on the subsequent morning of incident. The testimony of PW-3 Kishan is not reliable as there are grave contradictions in his version. In the examination-in-chief PW-3 Kishan stated that Govind Singh was holding the hand of “S” and was carrying her towards the hill. In the later part of examination-in- chief, he narrated that “S” did not return from Banori, she was searched by them and she could not be traced but in cross-examination the witness stated that no attempt was made by him to search “S” in the night and he went to sleep in his house. The witness also stated that Govind Singh being a man of criminal antecedents, he casted his doubt regarding his involvement in the incident. 12. The witness also stated that Govind Singh being a man of criminal antecedents, he casted his doubt regarding his involvement in the incident. 12. Learned counsel also contended that the age of PW-3 Kishan is 16 years, thus he is a child witness but learned trial Court didn't appreciated the possibilities of tutoring of such child witness by the interested complainant party can not be ruled out. There are grave inconsistencies in the statement of PW-3 Kishan, thus his testimony should have been discarded by learned trial Court. 13. Learned counsel further contended that according to Ex.P-2, the daughter of the complainant-Manohar Singh (PW-2) returned to the house of father-in-law of the complainant and thereafter went to sleep along with other children. But the aforesaid narration of the incident has been twisted by the complainant in the Court with a new version that he saw his daughter in night with Govind Singh holding fingers and thereafter he saw her dead on next day. PW-2 again narrated in his Court statement that Kishan Kumawat (PW-3) told him on next day that Govind Singh was holding finger of daughter of the complainant. All other witnesses have mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 to narrate the incident of last seen, which is not proved against the accused-appellant. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also contended that the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P-26 to connect the appellant with a incident of rape and murder of deceased “S”. Ex.P-24 is the letter written by the Medical Board to Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory for identification of the samples collected from the accused-appellant. According to Ex.P-24, sample A, B and C are samples of blood, saliva and semen respectively of accused-appellant whereas in Ex.P-26, Exhibit-A has been shown as pant of the deceased and DNA sample of the accused-appellant has been marked as Exhibit-D, as such grave contradiction are there in the marking of the exhibits by the Medical Board and the exhibits received by CDFD, Hyderabad. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that according to the report of State FSL (Ex.P-53), only one packet marked as “K” was received properly sealed and other packets were received unsealed. The article marked “K” was the foot prints. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that according to the report of State FSL (Ex.P-53), only one packet marked as “K” was received properly sealed and other packets were received unsealed. The article marked “K” was the foot prints. The opinion of the State FSL regarding the matching of foot print does not bear much significance to the accused-appellant as the foot prints are kind of weak evidence, on which the conviction of the accused- appellant cannot be sustained. 16. Learned counsel also contended that the Medical Board collected the samples of blood, saliva and semen of the accused-appellant and marked them as A, B and C which were sent to State FSL. The blood sample of the accused was collected on 16.04.2008 and sent to the CDFD, Hyderabad on the same day, whereas the CDFD received the same on 08.05.2008. This delay has remained unexplained on the part of prosecution. 17. Learned counsel also contended that the DNA typing evidence report does not disclose the fact of marking of the exhibits as to who marked the exhibits and in what manner. Even it is presumed that the SFSL sent these exhibits to CDFD, then also the fact that all the articles other than article marked as “K” which was of foot print, were received unsealed by the State FSL, as such reliance placed by learned trial Court upon the DNA typing is erroneous and is liable to be disbelieved by this Hon'ble Court. 18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submitted that the case of the prosecution has been premised upon circumstantial evidence which is required to be scrutinized to each and every possible theory to rule out the involvement of any other person in the incident other than the accused-appellant. In the instant case, the prosecution has not proved the chain of events in such conclusive manner so as to prove that it was the accused-appellant only who could have committed the offences for which he has been charged. Learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the accused-appellant from the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 713/2004. Papu Singh @ Pappi versus State of Rajasthan decided on 04.10.2013. 19. Ms. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 713/2004. Papu Singh @ Pappi versus State of Rajasthan decided on 04.10.2013. 19. Ms. Sonia Shandilya learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused- appellant on basis of cogent and reliable evidence, which proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that PW-2 Manohar Singh, father of the deceased lodged the written report Ex.P-2 at 08:15 AM on 11.04.2008 as soon as he got the information of the incident. He deposed that the accused was holding finger of the deceased in Banori. No suggestion in the cross-examination had been given in relation to any previous enmity, on the contrary it proves that the accused was known to him. PW-3 Kishan saw the accused holding hand of the deceased, PW-5 Prabhu Singh states that he saw the accused taking the deceased towards home and thereafter they were not seen, PW-6 Smt. Surgyan Kanwar-mother of the deceased stated that the deceased was holding finger of the accused. Similar statements were given by PW-7 Dalip Singh and PW-10 Mamraj Singh. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that in the present case every possible care is taken to collect the evidence and sent them to FSL and CDFD for examination. The conclusion drawn by the CDFD cannot be doubted from the evidence produced by the prosecution. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was last seen with the deceased. After the arrest of the accused-appellant, the recoveries were made at his instance and he identified the place of occurrence. The FSL report and CDFD report are conclusive proof and the accused-appellant tendered no explanation with regard to the incriminating material against him. The prosecution has proved all the circumstances which only points towards the guilt of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits. In support of the arguments learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on: 1. State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000)1 SCC 471 2. Sunil Mahadev Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013)15 SCC 177 3. Paramasivam and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police, (2015)13 SCC 300 4. Munna Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. In support of the arguments learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on: 1. State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000)1 SCC 471 2. Sunil Mahadev Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013)15 SCC 177 3. Paramasivam and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police, (2015)13 SCC 300 4. Munna Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012)6 SCC 174 We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the appellant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 22. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution mainly based it's case on the circumstance: 1. Last Seen. 2. DNA and FSL report. 3. Recoveries made from the accused-appellant at his instance: 23. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 12 SCC 644 has held that a normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be established cogently and firmly; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form the chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and he should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 24. From conjoint reading of the statements of PW-15 Dr. Maniram Bugaliya and post-mortem report Ex.P-27, it is proved that autopsy of “S”-deceased-daughter of Manohar Singh (PW-2) aged 10 years was conducted by PW-15 Dr. Maniram Bugaliya on 11.04.2008 and he found that parineum shows bleeding through vaginal orifice. On cleaning and exploration, vagina found full of clotted blood and torn posteriorly. In the opinion of Medical Board perennial and vaginal injury is of ante- mortem in nature. A possibility of forceful panitration into vaginal canal prior to death cannot be ruled out. The cause of death is asphyxia caused by blocked of respiratory passage by dust and shock due to haemorrhage caused by perennial injury. 25. In the opinion of Medical Board perennial and vaginal injury is of ante- mortem in nature. A possibility of forceful panitration into vaginal canal prior to death cannot be ruled out. The cause of death is asphyxia caused by blocked of respiratory passage by dust and shock due to haemorrhage caused by perennial injury. 25. PW-13 Rajesh Kumar is a foot print expert who deposed that he collected the foot prints of the accused from the place of occurrence by the help of moulds. 26. According to PW-11 Dr. Arjun Singh Shekhawat, he as a member of Medical Board conducted sex assault test of the accused-Goind Singh and found him to be capable of sexual intercourse and prepared a report Ex.P-23. The witness also stated that samples of blood, saliva and semen of accused-Govind Singh were preserved and sealed for FSL examination and sent the same vide letter Ex.P-24. He further deposed that on 16.04.2008 blood sample of accused-Govind Singh was taken for identification and sent to CDFD for DNA test. The witness also proved Identification Form Ex.P-25. No cross-examination was done with this witness by the accused. 27. Almost same statement was given by PW-12 Dr. Gopal Singh Tanwar. 28. PW-16 Smt. Bhavna Poonia is incharge of Mobile Forensic Unit of State Forensic Science Laboratory who deposed that she took photographs of the place of occurrence on 11.04.2008 and prepared report Ex.P-28. 29. PW-20 Bajrang Lal deposed that he was ASI at Police Station, Udaipurwati on 11.04.2008. On that day on receiving information he went to village Barwa where a written report Ex.P-2 was submitted to him by Manohar Singh. He carried on initial investigation. He states that all the material which was collected by him during investigation, was properly sealed and marked by him and deposited in the Maalkhana of Police Station in sealed condition. 30. PW-19 Gopiram Bajiya, the then SHO of Police Station, Udaipurwati deposed that on 12.04.2008, he carried on investigation mentioning in detail about the materials collected, sealed and marked on the spot and thereafter deposited in Maalkhana of police station in sealed condition, which was later on sent for FSL examination by Maalkhana incharge. 31. 30. PW-19 Gopiram Bajiya, the then SHO of Police Station, Udaipurwati deposed that on 12.04.2008, he carried on investigation mentioning in detail about the materials collected, sealed and marked on the spot and thereafter deposited in Maalkhana of police station in sealed condition, which was later on sent for FSL examination by Maalkhana incharge. 31. PW-18 Indraj Singh, the then Maalkhana incharge in Police Station, Udaipurwati deposed that he received 3 sealed packets on 11.04.2008, 8 sealed packets on 12.04.2008, 3 sealed packets on 14.04.2008 and 1 sealed packet on 16.04.2008 total 15 items which were deposited in Maalkhana register at serial No. 192. The witness also stated that out of which item No. 1 to 5, 7 to 11 and 15 were sent to FSL for chemical examination through Constable Sheeshram, who deposited the same and obtained receipt thereof, whose endorsement was made in Maalkhana register Ex.P-47. 32. PW-17 Sheeshram deposed that he deposited 12 sealed packets in FSL on 19.04.2008 and obtained receipt Ex.P-45. The witness also exhibited copy of letter of S.P., Jhunjhunu addressed to Director, FSL, Jaipur as Ex.P-46. 33. From the statements of above witnesses and documentary evidence exhibited by them, it is proved that Medical Officer, CHC, Chirava (Jhunjhunu) sent A. Blood sample, B. Saliva and C. Semen of the accused- appellant to Director, FSL, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 14.04.2008 vide letter Ex.P-24. Ex.P-47 is a copy of Maalkhana Register of Police Station, Udaipurwati showing details of articles deposited on different dates with marks thereon and condition of articles. Ex.P-46 is a copy of letter written by Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu to SFSL, Rajasthan giving a detailed note of items sealed and marked from A to K and further vaginal swab of deceased taken during post-mortem and marked A. This letter also mentions in what manner the items are to be matched. 34. Ex.P-53 is report of SFSL, Rajasthan showing only one article marked as “K” is properly sealed and also mentions that 7 exhibits marked as 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were unsealed and further showing that the footwear sole impression tallied with the shoes recovered from the accused-appellant. 35. Ex.P-25 is Identification Form of CDFD, Hyderabad shows that the samples were collected in presence of witnesses Gopiram (PW-19), Bajranglal (PW-20), Satish Kumar and Rohitash. PW-19 and PW-20 have categorically stated that the articles were sealed properly. 36. 35. Ex.P-25 is Identification Form of CDFD, Hyderabad shows that the samples were collected in presence of witnesses Gopiram (PW-19), Bajranglal (PW-20), Satish Kumar and Rohitash. PW-19 and PW-20 have categorically stated that the articles were sealed properly. 36. The investigation agency deposited 12 sealed packets with State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur vide receipt Ex.P-45. PW-17 Sheeshram has proved the same. Investigation officers PW-19 Gopiram and PW-20 Bajrang Lal also stated that the articles were sealed. PW-18 Indraj Singh proved copy of Maalkhana register Ex.P-47 which clarifies the shadow of doubt as to whether the material was properly sealed. 37. As per Ex.P-53 report of State FSL, one packet marked “K” properly sealed and 7 exhibits marked as 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were received unsealed through A.D. serology Division, FSL, Jaipur and not directly from Police Station, Udaipurwati. Therefore 7 exhibits marked as 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 received unsealed has no significance and argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. 38. From the statement of PW-20 Bajrang Lal, PW-19 Gopiram Bajiya, PW-18 Indraj Singh PW-17 Sheeshram, Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-45, it is proved that every possible care has been taken to collect the evidences and send them to FSL and CDFD for examination. 39. PW-2 Manohar Singh who lodged written report Ex.P-2 on 11.04.2008 is father of the deceased “S”. He deposed that Govind Singh was holding finger of the deceased in Banori. No suggestion in cross-examination was given to the witness in relation to any previous enmity. On the contrary it is proved that accused- appellant was known to him. 40. PW-3 Kishan deposed that Govind Singh was holding the hand of the deceased “S” in Banori and was taking her towards hill. In cross-examination the witness stated that the accused is of bad character. Though the witness is 16 years old only but from any stretch of imagination, it does not reveal that the witness has been tutored by complainant party or anyone else. 41. PW-5 Prabhu Singh deposed that accused Govind Singh was taking the deceased “S” towards home and thereafter they were not seen. He also stated that Govind Singh is of bad character. PW-6 Smt. Surgyan Kanwar who is mother of deceased has deposed that the deceased “S” was holding finger of the accused Govind Singh. 41. PW-5 Prabhu Singh deposed that accused Govind Singh was taking the deceased “S” towards home and thereafter they were not seen. He also stated that Govind Singh is of bad character. PW-6 Smt. Surgyan Kanwar who is mother of deceased has deposed that the deceased “S” was holding finger of the accused Govind Singh. PW-7 Dalip Singh is maternal uncle of deceased and uncle of accused-appellant, who deposed that accused Govind Singh was holding hand of the deceased “S”. PW-10 Mamraj Singh deposed that he saw the girl with Govind Singh in Banori who was taking her while holding her finger. 42. Thus from the statements of witnesses PW-2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was last seen with the deceased “S” in the night of 10.04.2008 and she found dead in the morning of 11.04.2008. 43. The samples of blood saliva and semen collected from the accused-appellant and sent to CDFD were in perfect condition for matching of DNA and that is why the same has been matched and report was prepared by CDFD. Had the material sent for DNA examination to CDFD degenerated, the CDFD would have returned the same with the report accordingly. After analysis of samples by CDFD, the conclusions of the CDFD are as under: 44. The DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude test: 1. The biological fluid present on the source of Exhibit-A (pant of the deceased) is of female origin. 2. The blood stain present on the source of Exhibit-C (cloth piece with blood and semen stains from underwear of Sh. Govind Singh) is from the source of the Exhibit-A (deceased). 3. The semen stains present on the source of Exhibit-C (cloth piece with blood and semen stains from underwear of Sh. Govind Singh) is from the source of Exhibit-D (Sh. Govind Singh). The samples mentioned in the identification form No. 1-Ex.P-25 were carried in sealed condition as stated by the witnesses. 45. The conclusion drawn by the CDFD cannot be doubted for the reason that Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B shown in the CDFD report (Ex.P-26) are related to the deceased and Exhibit-C and D are related to the accused- appellant. Govind Singh). The samples mentioned in the identification form No. 1-Ex.P-25 were carried in sealed condition as stated by the witnesses. 45. The conclusion drawn by the CDFD cannot be doubted for the reason that Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B shown in the CDFD report (Ex.P-26) are related to the deceased and Exhibit-C and D are related to the accused- appellant. In fact Exhibit-C is the green cloth piece is a blood and semen stained cloth piece of underwear of accused-Govind Singh which was recovered at his instance in pursuance to his discloser statement Ex.P-51. Ex.P-46 is a copy of letter sent by Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu to Director FSL, jaipur. The same finds mention in the letter Ex.P-46 marked as “I”. The Maalkhana Register Ex.P-47 also mentions that the above material collected and stored properly as stated above. Sealed packet of foot prints which was marked as “K” matched with the shoes of the accused-appellant which were recovered at the instance of accused in pursuance of the discloser statement Ex.P-52. 46. It is pertinent to mention that alphabetical naming of the materials collected during investigation is same till the articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory which was rearranged in ascending order when some of the material was sent for DNA examination purpose. Item No. 12, 13 and 14 mentioned in Ex.P-47 Maalkhana register were collected for DNA examination, are the samples of accused-appellant-Govind Singh which is mentioned as Exhibit-D in DNA report Ex.P-26 prepared by CDFD. The blood stain present on the source of Exhibit-C (cloth piece with blood and semen stains from underwear of accused-Govind Singh) is from the source of Exhibit-A (deceased). The semen stains present on the source of Exhibit-C (cloth piece with blood and semen stains from underwear of accused-Govind Singh) is from the source of Exhibit-D (Govind Singh), which are the samples mentioned in the identification form No. 1 (Ex.P-25) and carried in sealed condition as stated by the prosecution witnesses. There is absolutely no contradiction in the matching of the samples collected from the accused-appellant and the conclusion drawn in Ex.P-26 which is DNA report prepared by CDFD. 47. In D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 713/2004 Papu @ Pappi Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) case of the prosecution was that the accused made extra judicial confession before Sanwaliya and Ashok and the deceased was last seen with the accused. 47. In D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 713/2004 Papu @ Pappi Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) case of the prosecution was that the accused made extra judicial confession before Sanwaliya and Ashok and the deceased was last seen with the accused. Sanwaliya is resident of another village who refused in Court having given such statement and disowned his statement to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Another witness Ashok was not produced in evidence. PW-1 Omveer Singh stated that Rameshwar had seen the accused coming from place of occurrence but Rameshwar has not been produced in evidence. Hon'ble Court has drawn adverse inference against the prosecution for not producing Ashok and Rameshwar that had Ashok and Rameshwar been produced in evidence, they would have definitely supported the defence. Evidence of PW-16 and PW-17 was not taken as a evidence of last seen and other witnesses of last seen did not support the prosecution. Hon'ble Court found several missing links in the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant and set aside the conviction. Due to change in facts and circumstances of the case, it does not apply in the present case. 48. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh (supra), it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court may presume that the accused knew about the incriminating material or the dead body due to his involvement in the offence when he discloses the location of such incriminating material without disclosing the manner in which he came to know the same, the thought will presume that the accused knew about the incriminating material. 49. In Paramasivam and Ors. Vs. State through Inspector of Police (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence held that in absence of any explanation put forth by accused as to what happened to deceased thereafter which factum was specially within his knowledge, presumption could be drawn that accused had murdered the deceased, since he was found murdered within short time after abduction. 50. In Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court held that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. 50. In Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court held that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the court can draw an adverse inference against him. 51. In Sunil Mahadev Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence has held as under: Section 106 of the Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Since it was Accused 1 who had arrested the deceased at 00.45 A.M. on 17.12.1985 and kept the deceased in police lock-up after his arrest was complete, it was for accused 1 to explain the injuries on the body of the deceased other than those which were noticed in Ext.76. Accused 1 has not stated anything in this regard in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) nor adduced any evidence in defence to explain these injuries. In the absence of any explanation by Accused 1 or any evidence adduced on behalf of Accused 1 to explain these injuries on the body of the deceased, there can be no escape from the conclusion that these injuries have been caused on the body of the deceased by Accused 1 and no one else. 52. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) has also held that: In each and every case, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove it's case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove it's case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the court to be circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence and this aspect was not kept in view by the High Court and the trial court. 53. In view of discussions made above, it is proved that the accused-appellant was last seen with the deceased. After arrest of accused-appellant, the recoveries were made by the investigation agency at the instance of accused and he identified the place of occurrence. The reports of Forensic Science Laboratory and CDFD, Hyderabad are conclusive regarding matching of the materials and further no explanation has been tendered by the accused-appellant with regard to the incriminating material against him which provides the missing links. The prosecution has proved all the circumstances which only points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant that he is the only perpetrator of the crime and none else. 54. For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the accused-appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.