JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. The accused appellant Veera Ram @ Virma Ram aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.10.2015 preferred the instant cr. appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the conviction and sentence passed against him under Section 302 IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 22/2010 in which the accused appellant was held guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and punishment of life imprisonment was imposed against him. 2. As per brief facts of the case, a written report was submitted by one Nangaram on 27.1.2010 before the SHO, Police Station, Gudamalani stating therein that Dharma Ram @ Hadmanram S/o of my younger brother Pola Ram is working at Onja (Gujarat) for earning, who was expected to come back at home on 16.1.2010, but on 19.1.2010, a telephonic information was received from the village Gandhav Khurd that one bag is found near the Narbada Canal alongwith diary in which name of Dharma Ram @ Hadmanram S/o Pola Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Bhomasar Tartara is mentioned. Upon receiving such information, the family members alongwith Hara Ram and others reached Gandhav Narbada Canal and identified the bag and diary of deceased Dharma Ram. A search was made by the family members in the canal as well as nearby area and during search at village Gandhav Ranodar and Siwada, an information was received at Siwada circle that in one taxi No. RJ-16-TA-1129 at about 8-9 am, two persons came on 16.1.2010 and after reaching they come out from the taxi and went on foot towards the village Gandhav. On the next date when flow of water reduced in the Narbada Main Canal, the dead body of Dharma Ram was searched and recovered, therefore, an information was given to the police for recover of the dead body of Dharma Ram. Upon the head and nose of the body of the deceased Dharma Ram some injuries were found. 3. Upon written information (Ex.P/11) submitted by Hara Ram S/o Kheta Ram, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was initiated and after post mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to Hara Ram for cremation vide Ex.P/12. Before post mortem, the details of the body at the place of occurrence was recorded and Panchanama was prepared vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14 on 20.1.2010 itself. Before post mortem, the details of the body at the place of occurrence was recorded and Panchanama was prepared vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14 on 20.1.2010 itself. In the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. alongwith map. During proceedings, the complainant Nangaram S/o Moola Ram submitted a typed complaint before the SHO Police Station, Gudamalani on 27.1.2010. upon aforesaid complaint (Ex.P/22), formal FIR no. 11 was registered at Police Station Gudamalani under Section 302 and 201 IPC on 27.1.2010 and investigation was commenced. 4. During investigation one Poonma Ram, driver of the taxi No. RJ-19-TA-1129 was investigated and his statements were recorded by the police in which Poonma Ram disclosed that I am driver upon Taxi No. RJ-19-TA-1129 and having mobile of the owner of taxi. On 16.1.2010 in the evening at about 7-7.30 pm when I was standing at bus stand Sanchore, one person came and asked that accident of my brother occurred, therefore, I may be dropped at village Bachhadau. The fare of Rs. 12,00/- was settled for hiring the taxi and thereafter, Poonama Ram and the unknown person proceeded to go. In the between the way, when the said person was talking on mobile with somebody, due to suspicion, in the night at village Siwana, the driver asked one Sada Ram at the shop of Ramesh Manju to accompany him. Poonma Ram further stated that after one half hour, we reached at village Bachhadau. The person who hired the taxi asked that one person is required to be taken from hotel then Poonma Ram asked you told me about accident of your brother, and why you are taking another person with us. In spite of asking the third person was taken in the vehicle from hotel and, thereafter, they proceeded further in the said taxi. In the night they reached Siwana and after dropping the person, who has hired the vehicle made demand to pay fare but he asked the person who was taken from Bachhadau, have you took money for which I have instructed you, then said person said that "NO" I am not having money. In the night they reached Siwana and after dropping the person, who has hired the vehicle made demand to pay fare but he asked the person who was taken from Bachhadau, have you took money for which I have instructed you, then said person said that "NO" I am not having money. Thereafter, the person who had hired taxi said that I am having mobile and earplungs (Loong), you may take mobile and earplungs (Loong) after some time I will pay fare and take back my article, but I refused to take earplungs (Loong) and mobile and insisted to pay fare, but the said person gave me two earplungs (Loong). According to the witness Poonma Ram the person hired the vehicle and the person taken from village Bachhadau went on foot towards village Gandhav and witness Poonma Ram go back to drop Sada Ram. 5. On the next date, the person who hired the vehicle made a missed call having last number 3018 of mobile and another missed called came from mobile having last number 3650. Upon receiving those missed calls, the witness Poonma Ram made a call, then it is replied by one Likhama Ram that I am coming to pay you fare and to take my earplungs (Loong) back. Poonma Ram informed that I am not having earplungs (Loong) with me, you may come tomorrow. On 19.1.2010, another phone call was received from one mobile having last number 6350 and said that I am coming to pay your fare where you are thereafter at about 2'o Clock, a phone call was received by the driver Poonma Ram from Sanchore to the phone number having last number 6350 then he was informed that in between the way, one bus is standing in front of bus, I am standing there, you may come there. The person who hired the vehicle came there and paid Rs. 1300/- and the earplungs (Loong) were returned to him. As per information given by witness Poonma Ram after making payment of fare where the said person went I don't know. Upon aforesaid information given by the witness Poonma Ram, the accused appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/30 on 29.1.2010 at 8.40 pm in front of two witnesses Hakam Singh and Poonam Chand. As per information given by witness Poonma Ram after making payment of fare where the said person went I don't know. Upon aforesaid information given by the witness Poonma Ram, the accused appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/30 on 29.1.2010 at 8.40 pm in front of two witnesses Hakam Singh and Poonam Chand. After arrest, upon his two information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act dated 30.1.2010 and on 2.2.2010 at 8.15 pm and 7.30 pm, the place where offence was committed was verified by the accused appellant and one Lathi was also recovered vide Ex.P/26 in front of two witnesses Hakam Singh and Poonam Chand. The site plan (Ex.P/27) of the place of recovery was also prepared. Similarly, two mobiles were recovered vide Ex.P/18 and P/20. During investigation, accused Kamla W/o deceased Dharma was also arrested because as per evidence collected by the investigating officer, it is found that accused appellant was having illicit relation with Kamla wife of deceased Dharma and both went to remove said hurdle. 6. The police after investigation on the basis of evidence of last seen and recovery of mobile and Lathi as per infoamtion of accused appellant filed chare-sheet against the accused appellant in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer from where the case was committed to the court of Addl. District and Sesisons Judge, Barmer for trial, but later on, transferred to the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FT), Balotra Headquarter Barmer for trial and during pendency of trail, again the case was transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), but later on the case was finally transferred to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Barmer for trial. 7. The learned trial court after framing the charge recorded statement of 22 prosecution witnesses including witness of last seen PW 2 Poonma Ram and, thereafter recorded statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he said that I have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of concocted story framed by Pola Ram and others. No evidence was adduced in defence by the accused appellant, therefore, the learned trial court finally heard the arguments and convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment impugned dated 1.10.2015. 8. In this appeal the judgment impugned dated 1.10.2015 is under challenged. 9. No evidence was adduced in defence by the accused appellant, therefore, the learned trial court finally heard the arguments and convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment impugned dated 1.10.2015. 8. In this appeal the judgment impugned dated 1.10.2015 is under challenged. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence but chain of circumstances has not been completed so as to prove the allegation because appellant has been implicated mainly on the ground of call details and statement of PW-20 Bhura Ram who gave information about the bag of the deceased. Further, it is submitted that evidence of last seen has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. While inviting attention towards the post mortem repot it is submitted that as per post mortem report deceased expired within 24 hours whereas allegation against the accused appellant for last seen on 16.1.2010, therefore, the prosecution ought to have proved the presence of the deceased with the accused appellant from 16.10.2010 to 19.1.2010, therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the learned trial court erroneously held accused appellant guilty, therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the c deserves to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that PW-8 Adu Ram and PW-15 Pola Ram are real brother and father of the deceased and they fabricated false story that accused appellant was having illicit relation with Smt. Kamla wife of the deceased Dharma Ram and to remove the said hurdle in between their relation, the appellant murdered the deceased, but this fact has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of witness PW-2 Poonma Ram has wrongly been relied upon by the learned trial court because as per statement of PW-2 Poonma Ram, one Sada Ram was in the vehicle which is said to be hired by the accused appellant upon fare of Rs. 1200/- at Sanchore and went at Bachhadau. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW-18 Sada Ram it is submitted that the said witness turned hostile and did not support the story of the witness PW-2 Poonma Ram for hiring his vehicle at Sanchore, therefore, it is obvious that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW-18 Sada Ram it is submitted that the said witness turned hostile and did not support the story of the witness PW-2 Poonma Ram for hiring his vehicle at Sanchore, therefore, it is obvious that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. With regard to call details it is submitted that prosecution has completely failed to establish the conversation in between the accused appellant Veera Ram with co-accused Kamla (minor) wife of Dharma Ram as proved. It is also submitted that recovery of mobile of Intex Company vide Ex.P/23 alongwith two SIMS vide Ex.P/18 and P/20 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt because the mobile of Intex Company was given by him to PW 2 Poonma Ram because he was not having money to pay fare, therefore, the judgment impugned is illegal. 12. The crux of argument of learned counsel for the appellant that neither evidence of last seen is proved nor recovery of Lathi is proved because witness Bhura Ram of recovery before whom the said recovery was made, turned hostile and not supported the allegation of prosecution to connect the accused appellant with the crime. For the evidence of illicit relation, it is submitted that the testimony of PW-15 Pola Ram and PW-5 Nanga Ram and neighbor PW-7 Ishra Ram, so also, PW-8 Adu Ram cannot be relied upon because before the said incident no such complaint was made by them for having illicit relation of the accused appellant with Kamla wife of deceased Dharma Ram. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has erroneously gave finding in para no. 61 of the judgment that on the basis of evidence of last seen and recovery of weapon Lathi and motive of having illicit relation with Kamla wife of deceased Dharma, prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW-2 Poonma Ram it is submitted that the said witness has categorically stated on oath that on 16.1.2010 at 7.30 pm when he was standing at Sanchore Bus Stand, the accused appellant came and hired his vehicle upon fare of Rs. 1200/- to go at village Bachhadau. It is also argued that at the time of hiring the vehicle accused appellant said that accident of his brother took place at Bachhadau, therefore, I am hiring vehicle to go at Bachhadau but in between the way due to doubt another person Sada Ram was taken with him and after 1 hours when they reached Bachhadau the accused appellant asked that one more person from hotel will go with us. 14. Upon asking, the vehicle was taken to the hotel at Bachhadau from where one more person sit in the vehicle and, thereafter the witness asked accused Veera Ram that at the time of hiring vehicle you told me that accident of your brother took place then why you have taken this man from hotel, he replied that the vehicle of my brother-in-law is standing in the way, therefore, we are going to said place. 15. The witness PW-2 Poonma Ram further said that upon asking they proceeded from the village Bachhadau but near Gandhav Station, Meera Ram said that I may be dropped here, but PW-2 Poonma Ram refused to stop the vehicle due to night and reached at Siwana. At Siwana when the PW-2 Poonma Ram made demand of fare then Veera Ram said that I am not having money and asked the person who have taken from the hotel at Bachhadau, but that person also refused and said that I have no money. Thereafter, the accused appellant Veera Ram offered his mobile, but Poonma Ram refused to take mobile in lieu of fare. Thereafter, the said person gave his earplugs (Loong), which is later on taken back by him on 19.1.2010 while making payment of Rs. 1300/-. The other witness PW-14 Raghunath Ram owner of the vehicle no. Thereafter, the accused appellant Veera Ram offered his mobile, but Poonma Ram refused to take mobile in lieu of fare. Thereafter, the said person gave his earplugs (Loong), which is later on taken back by him on 19.1.2010 while making payment of Rs. 1300/-. The other witness PW-14 Raghunath Ram owner of the vehicle no. RJ-19-TA-1129 appeared before the court and proved the fact that PW-2 Poonma Ram is the driver upon his vehicle. Another witness PW-8 Adu Ram specifically stated in his statement that his brother Dharma Ram deceased went at Onja for earning but accused appellant Veera Ram and his wife of Dharma called him and upon calling by them Dharma Ram came at Bachhadau. In the meantime, the wife of Dharma made a mobile call to Veera Ram and said that due to accident of my brother you take my husband from Bachhadau. Meaning thereby, there was motive with the accused to kill deceased Dharma Ram, therefore, a conspiracy was made by Veera Ram and co accused Kamla wife of Dharma and in sequence thereof Dharma Ram was killed by the accused appellant Veera Ram. As per learned Public Prosecutor there is no question to disbelieve the trustworthy evidence upon which finding of conviction is recorded by the learned trial court. It is also argued that as per the call details of mobile phone of accused prosecution has proved the fact that there was relationship in between Kamla wife of deceased Dharma Ram and accused appellant, therefore, to remove the hurdle, a conspiracy was made by the accused appellant and Kamla to kill Dharma Ram. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the mobile, two SIMS and blood stained Lathi also recovered as per information given by the accused appellant vide Ex.P/26 and PW-12 Hakam Singh proved the recovery of Lathi upon information given by the accused appellant. The blood was found upon the Lathi recovered as per information given by the accused appellant, so also, one mobile of Intex Company and two SIMS were recovered vide Ex.P/33, P/18 and P/26, which is duly proved by the prosecution, therefore, prayed that there is no question to disturb the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court so as to hold accused appellant guilty. In view of the above, it is submitted that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 17. In view of the above, it is submitted that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the finding of the learned trial court in the light of evidence on record. As per evidence on record Hara Ram uncle of the deceased submitted a report (Ex.P/11) before the SHO Gudamalani on 20.1.2010 in which it is reported that an information was received from one Bhura Ram Bishnoi that near Narbada Main Canal one bag is found in which diary, cloths and other commodities found and in the diary the name of Dharma Ram is mentioned. Upon receiving aforesaid information an inquiry was made from Onja from there Kosala Ram informed that Dharma Ram left Onja on 16.1.2010 while saying that I am going to home. Upon aforesaid information Hara Ram and other persons went near Narbada Canal and identified the bag of the deceased Dharma Ram and made search and in between 8 to 10'O Clock in the morning the dead body of Dharma Ram was found in the canal, which is taken out from the canal by them and, thereafter, information was furnished to the SHO Police Station Gudamalani. 18. After registration of the information under Section 174 Cr.P.C. the SHO Police Station Gudamalani went on spot and prepared all the formalities at the place of occurrence and dead body of deceased was taken to the hospital. On 27.1.2010 at 6.15 post mortem was conducted in hospital and complaint (Ex.P/22) was filed by Nanga Ram uncle of the deceased and brother of Pola Ram in which following allegations were made, which reads as under. 19. Upon aforesaid typed complaint, FIR no. 11 was registered at Police Station Gudamalani on 27.1.2010. The documents prepared during the investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were taken on record and accused appellant was arrested on 29.1.2010 at 8.40 pm. After arrest, upon his information one Lathi was recovered vide Ex.P/21 and site plan Ex.P/27 of the place from where Lathi was recovered was also prepared. Upon another information given by the accused appellant the place of occurrence was verified. The another information (Ex.P/33) was given by the accused appellant Veera Ram for recovery of mobile nos.9549206390 and 8094293018 and mobile. The mobiles were recovered vide Ex.P/18 on 3.12.2010 in presence of two witnesses Thakar Ram and Kesara Ram. Upon another information given by the accused appellant the place of occurrence was verified. The another information (Ex.P/33) was given by the accused appellant Veera Ram for recovery of mobile nos.9549206390 and 8094293018 and mobile. The mobiles were recovered vide Ex.P/18 on 3.12.2010 in presence of two witnesses Thakar Ram and Kesara Ram. From co-accused Kamla two Nokia mobile sets and SIM were recovered vide Ex.P/17. PW-4 Thakar Ram witness of recovery of mobile categorically proved the recovery of mobile and SIM at the instance of accused appellant Veera Ram. The witness PW-7 Ishara Ram supported the prosecution case for recovery of dead body and diary and other articles of deceased. The witness Adu Ram (PW-8), PW-13 Rama Ram, PW-15 Pola Ram and PW-17 Rama Ram categorically proved the allegation of having illicit relation of accused appellant with Kamla co-accused wife of Dharma Ram. 20. In this case there is very important witness Poonma Ram (PW-2) of last seen who has categorically stated before the court that in the Central Jail he has identified the accused appellant in the identification proceedings in presence of Magistrate, which is placed on record as Ex.P/2. The PW-2 Poonma Ram was the driver of the vehicle RJ-16-TA-1129, which is alleged to be hired by the accused appellant in which deceased Dharma Ram was taken from hotel at Bachhadau. Upon perusal of Ex.P/2 it is abundantly clear that in the identification proceedings, PW-2 Poonma Ram identified the accused appellant who hired his vehicle on 16.1.2010 at Sanchore Bus stand. The witness PW-2 Poonma Ram further identified the photo of the deceased Dharma Ram and specifically gave statement in the court. The relevant part of the statement of witness Poonma Ram (PW-2) reads as under. 21. Upon consideration of entire evidence and call details and recovery of phone coupled with the evidence of last seen, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved each and every fact to connect the accused appellant with the crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen, recovery of mobile, call details and illicit relation with co-accused Kamla wife of Dharma Ram, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for committing murder of Dharma Ram. It is also admitted position of the case that charge-sheet was filed against Kamala in the Juvenile Justice board because the incident took place due to conspiracy of accused appellant Veera Ram with Kamla wife of the deceased Dharma Ram. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116 has held that while the circumstantial evidence the court should look into the entire evidence and see whether prosecution has led evidence so as to complete the chain of circumstances and enumerated the following golden principles, which reads as under: "(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 23. In the case of Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani and Others vs. State of Karnataka, 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 1460, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where on the basis of statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, dead body of deceased was recovered in furtherance of voluntary information furnished by two accused, the natural presumption in absence of explanation was that it was these two accused persons who had murdered the deceased and buried his body. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC 471 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Three possibilities may be countenanced when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities, the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 24. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gangula Satya Murthy, 1997 Cr. L.J. 774, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Where the fact that the dead body was found on the cot inside the house of the accused, it was held to be a telling circumstance against him. It was further held that the accused owed a duty to explain as to how a dead body, which was resultant of a homicide, happened to be in his house. In the absence of any such explanation from him, the implication of the said circumstances is definitely adverse to the accused." 25. In the case of Munna Kumar Upadhyaya alias Munna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 AIR (SC) 2470 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. 26. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Vishwakarma @ Surji vs. State, 2014 (1) AD (Del) 734 while considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Thereafter, after breaking open the floor and digging the earth upto 3/4 ft. 26. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Vishwakarma @ Surji vs. State, 2014 (1) AD (Del) 734 while considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Thereafter, after breaking open the floor and digging the earth upto 3/4 ft. one yellow plastic katta was taken out. One dead body was recovered lying wrapped in sheet inside the plastic katta. One iron chain and one sandal like chappal pair was found in the katta. As such mere fact that the proceedings do not bear her signatures, does not cast any doubt regarding her presence at the time of proceedings. Even otherwise, clinching evidence has come on record to prove the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused persons. Another aspect is to be taken note of. All the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused persons have been put to them, yet they could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. except choosing the mode of denial. In State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, 2001 (1) SCC 471 reiterated in Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 1136, it has been held that when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpate him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight that the accused have not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C." 27. Recently, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 281/2010) decided on 29.08.2016 while relying upon the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh and Paramasivam and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police, 2015 (13) SCC 300 has held as under:- "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. 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." 28. On the basis of above discussion and in the light of aforesaid judgments, we are of the opinion that in this case the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, there is no force in this Cr. Appeal. 29. Hence, this Cr. Appeal is hereby dismissed.