JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal filed at the instance of accused-appellant Tonny Kumar @ Vikas seeks to challenge the judgment dated 02.05.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.08/2005, convicting him for the offence under Sections 376(2)(f), 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused-appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit P12) was submitted by PW3 Ram Niwas S/o Ramnarain Bairwa to SHO, Police Station Vishwakarma, Jaipur at about 7.10 AM on 15.12.2003, stating therein that he is a resident of village Parwan Bundi, Police Station Banetha, District Tonk. He had been staying in Jaipur with his family for last one month to earn his livelihood. He was the tenant in the house of Shri Chhitar Bairwa, situated at Udhyog Vihar Colony, Road No.17, Vishwakarma. It was stated that on 14.12.2003 at around 7.00 PM he was present in his house. His daughter Rekha aged 8 years and younger son Lekhraj aged 6 years were playing in front of their house. Suddenly Rekha disappeared. They searched her everywhere in the colony during whole night but she could not be traced. In the night at around 3.30 AM her dead body was found lying on the public way near his house. He took the dead body of Rekha to his room. Chhitar, Suwa and Ramprakash came to his house on hearing the wail of his wife. The underwear and Chappal, which her daughter Rekha was wearing, were found missing. He doubted that someone has murdered her after committing rape upon her. Therefore, action be taken against the culprit. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the police registered regular First Information Report No.233/2003 on 15.12.2003 for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC and commenced the investigation. During investigation the accused was arrested on 15.12.2003 itself. He doubted that someone has murdered her after committing rape upon her. Therefore, action be taken against the culprit. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the police registered regular First Information Report No.233/2003 on 15.12.2003 for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC and commenced the investigation. During investigation the accused was arrested on 15.12.2003 itself. On completion of the investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 IPC in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate First Class No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur being triable exclusively by it, from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur for trial. Charges for the offence under Sections 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. No witness was produced in defence except one document. Learned trial Court on conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the case inasmuch as the prosecution evidence clearly shows that there were at least two persons who were staying as tenant in the house of PW11 Amar Singh. Apart from the accused-appellant, Sanjay Pal was also tenant in that room but the police neither made him accused nor cited him as witness, whereas PW4 Ramswaroop Bairwa has clearly stated that lock of the room was opened by Sanjay Pal, who was called from the factory. He had the keys of the room, thus it was he who opened the door. Therefore, recovery of Chappal, underwear of the deceased, a bed sheet and two underwear allegedly of the accused from that room was illegally foisted upon the appellant. In fact, it was a blind murder case and since the police was unable to find the real culprit, they falsely implicated the accused-appellant in the case, who was a neighbour in the adjoining factory. 5. In fact, it was a blind murder case and since the police was unable to find the real culprit, they falsely implicated the accused-appellant in the case, who was a neighbour in the adjoining factory. 5. Learned counsel submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of various prosecution witnesses and they have given contradictory versions as to whether the deceased, when her dead body was found lying in the public way, was wearing underwear or skirt or frock. PW1 Shojiram Bairwa, a neighbourer of Ram Niwas Bairwa, father of the deceased, has stated that when her dead body was found she was wearing underwear though it was torn. There were no other clothes on her body. PW3 Ram Niwas, the informant, in his examination-in-chief has stated that the dead body of his daughter Rekha was found lying outside the house of Amar Singh. She at that time was wearing a blue colour underwear and blue frock but her Chappal was missing, though on the previous day when she left the house she was wearing a pink colour Hawai Chappal. PW6 Chhitarmal has stated that the dead body of Rekha was found lying on the public way and at that time there were no clothes on her body and blood was oozing from her private parts. PW7 Suwa Lal and PW8 Rajaram both have stated that her Chappal and underwear were missing. PW21 Shivji Lal in the cross examination has stated that Rekha was wearing skirt and frock but her Chappal was missing, however he has stated nothing about the fact whether she was wearing underwear or not. PW22, Rampyari, mother of the deceased, has stated that her husband brought the dead body of her daughter Rekha to their room. She was neither wearing underwear nor Chappal. This witness has further stated that she put skirt on the dead body of the deceased. It is argued that not only there are contradictions with regard to the fact whether the deceased was wearing some clothes or not including underwear when her dead body was found lying on the public way, but there are also serious contradictions regarding timing as to when the police was informed about the incident. The informant PW3 Ram Niwas, the father of the deceased is the most important witness on this aspect. The informant PW3 Ram Niwas, the father of the deceased is the most important witness on this aspect. He has stated that when he went out of his room at around 3.30 AM in the morning in search of his daughter, he found her dead body lying outside the house of Amar Singh. They informed the police about the incident on telephone at about 6.30 AM and the police reached there at around 7.00 AM, but other prosecution witnesses have given different versions on this aspect. PW1 Shojiram Bairwa has stated that when his tenant told him that dead body of the daughter of Ramniwas Bairwa was lying on the road, he went there and thereafter informed the police. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that the police reached at the place of occurrence at about 5.00 AM in the morning. PW2 Ramprakash has stated in the cross examination that he telephonically informed the police at about 7.00 AM in the morning from STD Booth and the police reached at the place of incident within 5 to 10 minutes thereafter. PW6 Chhitarmal has stated that they informed the police at about 4.00 AM and thereafter the police reached at the place of occurrence. On the other hand, PW7 Suwa Lal has stated that Ram Niwas gave the report to the police at around 7.00 AM, but PW8 Rajaram stated that the police was informed at about 4.00 AM in the morning whereupon the police reached the place of incident. Soon thereafter a written report was given to the police by Ram Niwas. Not only there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the time as to when the police was informed about the incident, but they have differed with each other also as to the timing of arrest of the accused-appellant. Memo of arrest Exhibit P11 indicates that the appellant was arrested at 11.00 AM on 15.12.2003 but the prosecution witnesses have given different version with regard thereto. PW3 Ram Niwas, the informant has stated that accused was arrested at about 10.00 AM on 15.12.2003 from his room. Memo of arrest Exhibit P11 indicates that the appellant was arrested at 11.00 AM on 15.12.2003 but the prosecution witnesses have given different version with regard thereto. PW3 Ram Niwas, the informant has stated that accused was arrested at about 10.00 AM on 15.12.2003 from his room. PW10 Arjun Singh has stated that the accused-appellant was called from the factory at about 10.30 AM on 15.12.2003 and on the asking of the police, he opened the lock of the room and thereafter both, the underwear and Chappal of the deceased and a bed sheet were recovered from his room. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae further argued that before arrest of the accused-appellant at 11.00 AM on 15.12.2003, the police recovered two wrappers of bubble gum (chocolate) lying in the public way near the place of incident at 09.55 AM on 15.12.2003 vide memo Exhibit P5 and also recovered three wrappers of bubble gum in front of the gate of the room at 10.15 AM vide memo Exhibit P6. It cannot be believed that those wrappers could be carried by the accused-appellant to be thrown near the dead body. The memo of information Exhibit P23 which was recorded at the instance of the accused-appellant under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act was prepared at 11.25 AM on 15.12.2003, wherein the accused-appellant allegedly gave information that he could help in recovering the underwear of the deceased and the box of bubble gum from his room, but so far as the recovery of bed sheet from his room vide Exhibit P9 is concerned, there is no information obtained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 7. It is further submitted that the prosecution has even produced PW5 Shikhar Chand, the shop owner to prove that the accused used to buy grocery items and other articles from him and that he had purchased one box of bubble gum from his shop 15-20 days ago from the date of incident and he had yet not made payment of the same. This witness is a planted witness only to show that the box of bubble gum recovered from the room of the appellant vide memo Exhibit P8 can be connected with two chocolate wrappers found lying on the public way recovered vide Exhibit P5 and three wrappers of bubble gum found lying in front of the gate of the room recovered vide Exhibit P6, originated from the aforesaid box. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the statement of shop owner PW5 Shikhar Chand, who himself stated that there were 4-5 boys who were staying in the house of landlord Amar Singh and they also used to purchase bubble gum from his shop. 8. PW10 Arjun Singh has stated that the accused used to give toffees to the children. He had three daughters, a son and a grandson who also used to eat toffees. The accused-appellant used to give toffees to all of them and sometimes they themselves used to buy toffees from the market. The arguments of the learned Amicus Curiae is that the kind of wrappers that were recovered by the police from near the dead body and the main gate of the room of the appellants were commonly available in the market and could be consumed by any person. Besides, this cannot be believed that the bubble gum box purchased by the accused-appellant about 15-20 days ago would still be found with 150 toffees intact therein and the appellant would not have consumed the same during all this long period. 9. It is further argued that prosecution version that the deceased was seen playing outside the house around 7.00 PM on the previous day and suddenly disappeared without being noticed by anybody, cannot be believed. If the deceased was subjected to rape in the room which opens towards the main gate and adjoins other room of the landlord, it also cannot be believed that she would not raise any hue and cry and such heinous incident would go unnoticed. It also cannot be believed that mouth of the deceased was forcibly closed by pushing cloth in it. The statement of PW3 Ram Niwas, the informant does not inspire any confidence. It is argued that he has stated that the deceased was wearing blue colour underwear and blue colour frock and was also wearing Chappal of pink colour. It also cannot be believed that mouth of the deceased was forcibly closed by pushing cloth in it. The statement of PW3 Ram Niwas, the informant does not inspire any confidence. It is argued that he has stated that the deceased was wearing blue colour underwear and blue colour frock and was also wearing Chappal of pink colour. The clothes of the deceased which she was allegedly wearing lastly when she left her house, have not been recovered inasmuch as the Chappal which has been recovered by the police is not of pink colour, as asserted by the father of the deceased. As per recovery memo Exhibit P7, the colour of the Chappal was violet. In fact, PW3 Ram Niwas in his cross examination has stated that none of the articles were recovered in his presence and therefore virtually he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has even stated that three persons were staying in the room. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that medical examination report of the accused which is Exhibit P24, prepared by PW20 Dr. Nirmal Mudgal, indicated that he had sustained three injuries on his penis by blunt weapon and the duration of the injuries was within 1-2 days. But in his cross examination, he has stated that these injuries could have been received by the accused due to fall. The blood found on the clothes of the accused could be his own blood. Unless the blood group of the accused was determined, it cannot be said that the blood found on his clothes was not of the accused himself. This witness in his statement has admitted that the blood group of the accused was not determined. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no direct evidence in the case and it is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and individual circumstances against the accused-appellant have not been proved inasmuch as they do not form a complete chain of circumstances against the appellant so as to rule out every possibility of he being innocent. In these circumstances, learned Amicus Curiae prayed that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court may be quashed and set aside. 11. In these circumstances, learned Amicus Curiae prayed that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court may be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of the prosecution and referred to the various memos of recovery and statements of various witnesses, especially what was stated by the Investigating Officer PW18 Laxman Singh, which we shall refer at the appropriate time. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the statements of PW10 Arjun Singh and PW11 Amar Singh. PW11 Amar Singh has stated that when the police enquired from the accused as to how Chappal etc. were found in his room, he could not give any answer and stood silent with his eyes cast down. Such conduct of the accused-appellant, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, would be relevant. He referred to the injury report of the accused Exhibit P24 and submitted that apart from two abrasions, the accused-appellant also received three injuries on his penis which clearly indicate his involvement in the crime. He also referred to FSL Report Exhibit P25, according to which blood found on the clothes of the deceased was same which was found on the bed sheet and underwear recovered from the room of the accused-appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore submitted that the chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant is fully proved which points finger of doubt against the accused-appellant and none else. Thus, the impugned judgment is just and perfect and does not call for any interference. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The statements of the witnesses referred to above clearly establish that the deceased was last seen playing outside her house on previous day at around 7.00 PM and suddenly disappeared. Her dead body was found lying outside the room of the accused-appellant early in the morning on the following day at around 3 AM-4 AM by her father PW3 Ram Niwas. The site plan of the place of incident Exhibit P2 indicates that the house of Amar Singh is a corner house facing road on two sides on Western and Southern side. The site plan of the place of incident Exhibit P2 indicates that the house of Amar Singh is a corner house facing road on two sides on Western and Southern side. While the corner room of the house let out to the appellant opened on the Western side, the dead body of the deceased was fond just adjacent to the room on the Southern side at place ‘X’, indicated in the site plan. The house of PW2 Ram Prakash Bairwa, brother-in-law of PW3 Ram Niwas is situated adjacent to the house of PW11 Amar Singh towards Northern side. The evidence of the witnesses proved that the deceased was aged about 7-8 years and used to go to the house of his maternal uncle Ram Prakash. PW2 Ram Prakash and PW3 Ram Niwas both have stated that despite their frantic efforts to search the deceased late in the night, they could not locate her. PW2 Ram Prakash has stated that Ram Niwas(PW3) came to his house at around 7.00 PM and enquired whether deceased Rekha had come to his house. Thereafter they went in search of her and when she was not traceable they informed the police and in the following morning Ram Niwas found her dead body lying on the public way adjacent to the house of Amar Singh and took the same to his room. On learning about this through someone, this witness Ram Prakash also reached there and noticed blood on the neck of the deceased. The police thereafter reached at the place of incident where Ram Niwas gave a written report to the police. The police seized the clothes with which the dead body was covered i.e. her frock and skirt and prepared Site Plan Exhibit P2 in his presence. He left the house of his brother-in-law Ram Niwas after meeting him ten minutes before the deceased went missing. At that time he saw her playing in front of the house. She was having wrappers of the chocolate in her hands. 14. PW3 Ram Niwas, the father of the deceased has stated that when the body of the deceased was found, her Chappal and underwear were missing. He brought her dead body in that very condition to his house. At that time he saw her playing in front of the house. She was having wrappers of the chocolate in her hands. 14. PW3 Ram Niwas, the father of the deceased has stated that when the body of the deceased was found, her Chappal and underwear were missing. He brought her dead body in that very condition to his house. His wife on seeing this started crying loudly and on hearing the sound of her wail, other neighbourers also assembled and thereafter the police was informed at about 6.30 AM and the police reached there at around 7.00 AM. He thereafter gave written report Exhibit P12 to the police. He has stated that the deceased was wearing frock, underwear, shawl and Chappal when she went missing but when her dead body was found she was wearing only frock and shawl and her underwear and Chappal were missing. The missing underwear and the Chappal were found in the room of the accused-appellant. Similar version of the incident has been given by other witnesses as well, like PW4 Ramswaroop Bairwa, who too has stated that the deceased used to frequently visit the house of her maternal uncle PW2 Ram Prakash and sometimes used to stay there during night. Her dead body was found in the morning at around 4.00 AM. At that time she was wearing a skirt and frock but her Chappals were missing. PW6 Chhitarmal too has stated that when the body of the deceased was found , it visually appeared to be case of rape because there was bleeding from her genitals. Since the STD/PCO booth was closed, it was got opened and the police was informed about the incident. No doubt, this witness has stated that the police was informed at around 4.00 AM, PW3 Ram Niwas has stated that the police was informed at around 6.30 AM in the morning. Thus these witnesses in somewhat manner have differed with each other with regard to time when the police was informed about the incident, but the overwhelming evidence available against the accused-appellant we shall discuss later. PW7 Suwalal has also stated that when the body of the deceased was found, her underwear and Chappal were missing and it could be said by anybody on visual examination that she has been subject to rape. PW7 Suwalal has also stated that when the body of the deceased was found, her underwear and Chappal were missing and it could be said by anybody on visual examination that she has been subject to rape. PW8 Rajarm has also stated that though the deceased was wearing skirt and frock, but her underwear and Chappals were missing. When the accused opened the lock of the room, Chappals were found therein and Ram Niwas (PW3) immediately identified them to be that of his daughter. The bed sheet which was recovered from the room was also found to be stained with blood. 15. PW10 Arjun Singh, the employer of the accused-appellant has stated that he is having a factory in his house itself. He had taken a room on rent in the adjacent house of Amar Singh where accused Tonny was staying. The police called the accused-appellant from his factory at around 10.30 AM and when he opened the lock of the room, Chappal of a child, a bed sheet, two underwear and an old underwear used as mop were found therein. The accused also gave an underwear of the child and a box of chocolate/bubble gum which he took out from a bag. The police seized all the articles recovered from the room. The witness Ram Niwas identified the Chappal (article 6), box of bubble gum (article 8), bed sheet (article 9), underwear (article 7) and another underwear (article 10). 16. PW11 Amar Singh, landlord of the house also stated that accused-appellant was called from the factory and when he was asked to open the door of the room, he immediately opened the room. The wrappers of toffee were found on the floor of the room. A Chappal was also found lying there. A bed sheet and an old underwear used as mop were also found on the floor of the room, which were seized by the police. The police also recovered, on the information of the accused, one blue colour underwear of a child and a bubble gum box from the bag lying in the room. A bed sheet and an old underwear used as mop were also found on the floor of the room, which were seized by the police. The police also recovered, on the information of the accused, one blue colour underwear of a child and a bubble gum box from the bag lying in the room. Merely because this witness has stated in the cross examination that he did not hear the sound of crying in the night, does not mean that other evidence of the prosecution be discarded which bring to the guilt of the accused by clinching evidence, the most important of which is the medical examination Exhibit P24 of the accused-appellant which has been proved by PW20 Dr. Nirmal Mudgal. According to this report, a bruise was found in the dimension of 4 x 2 cm. below the right eye of the accused-appellant. Another bruise in the dimension of 2 x 2 cm. on the back of his neck and an abrasion redish in colour on the lobule of right ear in the size of 1 x 0.5 cm. was also found. Though these injuries appear to have been caused by struggle forced by victim but the crucial evidence against the accused-appellant is the factum of injuries found on his penis. Injury No.1 was abrasion with redishness on the right side of the glance of penis in the dimension of 0.5 x 0.3 cm. Injury No.2 was also an abrasion of the same dimension on the left side of glance of penis. Injury No.3 was also an abrasion in the dimension of 0.2 x 0.2 cm. which was on the frenulum of penis. Duration of these injuries was within 1-2 days. Such kind of injuries were certainly sustained by the accused while he was trying to commit rape upon the deceased child aged about 7-8 years only. It cannot be said that such injuries on the penis of the accused could have been caused due to beating given by the police. In fact PW20 Dr. Nirmal Mudgal has stated that when the accused was present for examination, he was wearing pant and shirt which were not torn. All the three doctors who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased have been produced as witness, namely PW12 Dr. Bhanwar Singh Yadav, PW13 Dr. M.D. Qureshi and PW14 Dr. Shashi Purohit. In fact PW20 Dr. Nirmal Mudgal has stated that when the accused was present for examination, he was wearing pant and shirt which were not torn. All the three doctors who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased have been produced as witness, namely PW12 Dr. Bhanwar Singh Yadav, PW13 Dr. M.D. Qureshi and PW14 Dr. Shashi Purohit. The statement of all of them is consistent with each other in proving the post-mortem report Exhibit P13, according to which the deceased sustained the following injuries:- “1. Abrasion dark red 1/4 x 1/4 cm left upper lip inner aspect, 1/4 x 1/4 cm at centre of lower lip inner aspect. 2. Abrasion dark red colour on left cheek 4 in number reported by 1 cm. distance 1/4 x 1/4 cm. each. 3. Abrasion dark red colour 7 in number 1/4 x 1/4 cm each reported by 1/2 cm distance & 4 on Rt. Cheek- 3 on right mandible L- 13 above middle of neck. 4. Bruise dark red 2 x 1 cm on left side of middle of neck. 5. Bruise dark red 2 x 1 cm Rt. Eye 1 cm lateral to Rt. Eyebrow. 6. Abraded bruise 5 x 1 cm dark reddish blue in front of neck transversely placed 4 cm. below chin. 7. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x deep upto perineal muscles present in vaginal extending deep to Rt. Side of perineal muscles with hymen fully torned with covering red partially clotted blood around wound with antemortem haematoma & another lacerated wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm x deep to anal muscles & anal orifice is torned, wound present in anal orifice as 7’O clock position with antemortem haematoma in surrounding tissues of muscles. On dissection of neck, antemortem haematoma present dark red colour, underneath the skin & subcutaneous tissue of surrounding muscles underneath the brussels abraded area. Antemortem haematoma also present in larings, trachea, thyroid and cricoid cartilage & surrounding tissues of muscles. All injures are antemortem in nature.” 17. As per the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was due to combined effect of pressure over neck structure, leading to asphyxia and ante mortem injuries to genital organs leading to haemorrhage shock, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW12 Dr. All injures are antemortem in nature.” 17. As per the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was due to combined effect of pressure over neck structure, leading to asphyxia and ante mortem injuries to genital organs leading to haemorrhage shock, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW12 Dr. Bhanwar Singh Yadav has stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia on account of pressure over the neck and excessive bleeding from her genitals, as a result of which she received haemorrhagic shock. Similar statements have been made by two other doctors, namely PW13 Dr. M.D. Qureshi and PW14 Dr. Shashi Purohit. According to them, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 18. FSL reports Exhibit P14, P15 & P25 and various memos of recovery have been proved by Investigating Officer PW18 Laxman Singh. According to FSL report Exhibit P15, human semen was detected in Exhibit No.2 (from packet E), which was old underwear of the accused-appellant used as mop and also from Exhibit No.3 (from packet F) which was the underwear of the deceased and from Exhibit No.8 (from packet H) which was also the underwear of the accused-appellant, but on other articles semen could not be detected. On morphological and microscopic examination in Exhibit No.11 (from packet Nil-1) i.e. pubic hair of the deceased and Exhibit No.16 (from packet Nil-2) i.e. hair from perineal region of the accused were found to be hair of human origin, though no definite opinion could be drawn regarding their comparison. Exhibit No.1 i.e. bed sheet from packet D, Exhibit No.2 i.e. old underwear of the accused from packet E, Exhibit No.3 i.e. underwear of the deceased from packet F, Exhibit No.4 i.e. frock of the deceased from packet K, Exhibit No.5 i.e. skirt of the deceased from packet L, Exhibit No.6 i.e. pant of the accused from packet I, Exhibit No.7 i.e. jacket of the accused from packet J, Exhibit No.8 i.e. underwear of the accused from packet H, Exhibits 9 & 10 i.e. urethral slide and urethral swab from packet Nil-1, and Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15 i.e. vaginal swab, vaginal slide, anal swab, anal slide respectively from packet Nil-2 were forwarded to Serology Division for necessary examination. Exhibit P25 is the report of Serology Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, according to which the bed sheet found in the room of the accused-appellant in article 1 from packet D, article 3 i.e. underwear of the deceased from packet F, article 4 i.e. frock of the deceased from packet K and article 5 i.e. skirt of the deceased from packet L were all found to contain human blood of AB group. 19. Thus, connecting the bed sheet found in the room of the accused-appellant and his own underwear by clinching evidence and also the underwear of the deceased found in the room of the accused-appellant and the frock found on her body have matched with the blood group AB of the accused-appellant on both sets of articles. 20. In view of the above discussion, all the circumstances that have been sought against the accused-appellant are proved by cogent, reliable and clinching evidence and they form a chain of circumstances so complete against him so as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible to the innocence of the accused and definitely point finger of doubt towards the accused-appellant and none else that it must be he who had committed rape upon the deceased and then murdered her. 21. The Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 , held that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 22. Aforesaid judgment was recently followed by the Supreme Court in Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. 22. Aforesaid judgment was recently followed by the Supreme Court in Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 , wherein it was held that circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Even when there is no eyewitness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances, which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to be proved, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. 23. In view of above, we find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. 24. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.