JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant Gautam Mandal @ Paltu has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 3 (Three) years and fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Jahanara Begum @ Ranju Begum. She was 50 years at the time of her death. 3. According to the prosecution case, on the date of occurrence i.e. 09/03/2012, Sub-Inspector Abdul Mondal Khandakar (PW-1) was serving as the In-Charge of Dadgiri Police Out-Post under Basugaon Police Station. He resided in his officially allotted quarter situated in the campus of that Police out-post together with his wife-Jahanara Begum-the victim. A few days before the incident, he sold some plot of lands and kept a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash in two trunks in his quarter. Appellant –Gautam Mandal @ Paltu was driver of a Pick-up van, which was requisitioned by the police and at that relevant time, it was at the disposal of Abdul Mondal. Abdul Mondal was scheduled to go to Basugaon Police station in the morning on that day and appellant was detailed to accompany him. But at about 6:30 A.M. appellant called constable Basudev Kisko (PW-5) and told him that he would not be able to accompany Abdul Mondal as he had some work at a place called Khabrabari and so requested Basudev to accompany Abdul Mondal. 4. In the meantime, at about 8:30 A.M., when Abdul Mondal got prepared to go to Basugaon and asked Sankar Mahanayak (PW-4)-who was on sentry duty that day-to call the appellant, Sankar could not trace him and asked Basudev to find him. Basudev also could not find him and hence, wasting no more time, Abdul Mondal proceeded to Basugaon Police Station with Basudev on a motor-cycle of the latter. However, after their departure, Sankar noticed the appellant driving his van back and forth in front of the house of Abdul Mondal at about 9 a.m. and also found him hanging around the Police Out-Post in the noon. Mst. Padvan Bewa (PW-3)-a pan vendor near the house of Abdul Mondal-also noticed the appellant playing Holi-as it was the occasion-near the house of Abdul Mondal. Mst. Padvan Bewa (PW-3)-a pan vendor near the house of Abdul Mondal-also noticed the appellant playing Holi-as it was the occasion-near the house of Abdul Mondal. She also met Jahanara who came to her shop at about 2 P.M. Later around 3 P.M., the milkmaid who used to deliver milk to the house of Abdul Mondal came to his house to deliver milk as usual. But nobody responded to her repeated calls and so she came to the shop of Padvan and left the packet of milk with her to be delivered to Jahanara. Padvan kept the packet and went to deliver the same at about 6 P.M. But this time also Jahanara-who was alone in the house-did not respond in spite of repeated calls and the door of the house was found to be closed from inside. Padvan then went to the Police Out-Post and meeting Sankar there, narrated him about the non-response of Jahanara. 5. Sankar then immediately came to the house of Abdul Mondal accompanied by Padvan and Munin Boro. They again called Jahanara frantically, but in vain. Puzzled, Sankar tried to contact Abdul Mondal over his phone but at that time, Abdul Mondal and Basudev returned and arrived Dadgiri Out-Post. Abdul Mondal then tried to open the door and found that it was closed by a nail from outside and when the door was opened by bending the nail and the lights of the room were switched on, to the utter surprise and dismay to all, found the blood smeared dead body of Jahanara on the bed with multiple cut injuries on her neck and abdomen. Abdul Mondal then opened the two trunks where money was kept and found the entire sum of Rs.4,00,000/- missing. Being somehow suspicious against the appellant, Abdul Mondal directed Basudev to bring him and Basudev and Constable Pranjal Dutta went to the house of the father-in-law of the appellant and finding him there, brought him to the Police Out-Post. It may be mentioned herein that the appellant used to reside in the house of his father-in-law. 6. Sankar then informed Rupak Kumar Borah (PW-16)-the then Officer-in-Charge of Basugaon Police Station- about the incident over telephone and Rupak after making a General Diary Entry being 244/12 (Exhibit-12) rushed to the pace of occurrence. In the meantime, other police officers and people of the area also gathered at the place of occurrence. 6. Sankar then informed Rupak Kumar Borah (PW-16)-the then Officer-in-Charge of Basugaon Police Station- about the incident over telephone and Rupak after making a General Diary Entry being 244/12 (Exhibit-12) rushed to the pace of occurrence. In the meantime, other police officers and people of the area also gathered at the place of occurrence. Rupak then drew the sketch map (Exhibit-11) and sent the dead body for Post-Mortem examination. He also recorded statements of witnesses and Prabhat Barman (PW-13) seized the two trunks vide Exhibit-5 seizure list. Police kept the appellant under custody for that night and during interrogation he admitted his guilt and became ready to lead the police for discovery of the weapon of assault as well as the stolen money. 7. On the next day i.e. 10/03/2012, Abdul Mondal made the Ejahar (Exhibit-1) at Basugaon Police Station. 8. Dr. P.K.Doley (PW-14) conducted the post-mortem examination on Jahanara on 10/03/2012 and found deep penetrating multiple injuries over right abdomen and deep cut injury over front of neck. According to his opinion in the post mortem report Exhibit-6 the death was caused due to shock and massive hemorrhage resulting from the injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. 9. On 11/03/2012, Investigating Officer - Rupak called Abdul Mondal Malik Ahmed (PW-15)-a journalist-to accompany the police and to record in video the process while leading to discovery and the appellant led the police party along with Dhiraj Basnet (PW-2), Bishal Basnet (PW-6), Kadam Bahadur (PW-7) and Umesh Karki (PW-8) to the betel-nut tree plantation at the backyard of the house of his father-in-law. There he showed the knife by which he committed the crime. It was burnt by him after committing the offence and as such the knife was without a handle. He also showed his clothes-one jeans pant and a jacket-being soaked with detergents kept in a bucket and also led them to the bed room in the house of his father-in-law, where after removing the bed and digging the floor under the bed he showed a sum of Rs.3,29,500/-, being wrapped in a plastic bag and kept concealed. He also confessed of spending a sum of Rs. 16,500/- out of which he gave Rs.15,000/- to Khirod Basumatary (PW-12) for refunding a loan taken by his father Ganesh Mandal (DW-1), Rs.1,000/- to Babu-his brother-in-law-and Rs.500/- being spent by himself. 10. He also confessed of spending a sum of Rs. 16,500/- out of which he gave Rs.15,000/- to Khirod Basumatary (PW-12) for refunding a loan taken by his father Ganesh Mandal (DW-1), Rs.1,000/- to Babu-his brother-in-law-and Rs.500/- being spent by himself. 10. The knife (Material Exhibit-2) was seized in presence of Dhiraj Basnet and Abdul Mondal Malik vide seizure list Exhibit-2. The sum of Rs. 3,29,500/- (Material Exhibit-1) was also seized in presence of Bishal Basnet, Kadam Bahadur and Umesh Karki vide seizure list Exhibit-3. Police then went to the house of Khirod Basumatary to whom the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in Bhutanese currency against loan. This sum was paid to Khirod Basumatary towards repayment of a loan including the interest amount, as he stood guarantor for the father of the appellant who had availed the loan of Rs. 10,000/-from a fund which was raised for the purpose of celebrating the occasion of Christmas. Khirod then handed over the money to Pradip Basumatary (PW-10)-the cashier. Police seized the said amount also in presence of Rahila Basumatary (PW-4), Khirod, Pradip and Nabadip Basumatary (PW-11) vide Exhibit-4 seizure list. Abdul Mondal Malik recorded the discovery from the beginning of the journey of the police party till end and kept the same in a video cassette (Exhibit-4). 11. On completion of investigation Rupak submitted chargesheet-Exhibit-10 against the appellant for offences under sections 302/380 of Indian Penal Code. 12. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. However, during his statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant admitted showing the money and clothes to the police but denied showing the knife. He also denied committing murder of Jahanara and adduced the evidence of his parents-Ganesh Mandal (DW-1) and Radha Mandal (DW-2) to prove his innocence. But the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scanning the evidence brought on records, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 14. It is the evidence of Rahila(PW-9) that the father of appellant availed a loan of Rs.10,000/-from a fund. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Khirod-who stood as a guarantor of father and Pradip-the cashier. 14. It is the evidence of Rahila(PW-9) that the father of appellant availed a loan of Rs.10,000/-from a fund. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Khirod-who stood as a guarantor of father and Pradip-the cashier. This would go to prove that appellant’s father –Ganesh (DW-1) was in need of money but was not in a position to refund the loan with interest. Therefore, the evidence of Ganesh that he gave Rs.1,20,000/- to the appellant is out and out false and unbelievable. A person who could not even refund a meager amount of Rs.15,000/- could not at all give such a huge amount to his son (appellant) to purchase a motor cycle. For this ground, the evidence of the mother of the appellant –Radha (DW-2) is also unbelievable. It is her evidence that she used to give Rs.5,000/- per month for 18 months from her income by running a Stall. But had she earned any amount, she would have helped her husband to refund the loan and the appellant would not have taken the burden to repay his father’s debt after killing Jaharana Begum. Besides, she admitted in her cross-examination that she neither told the police nor her husband that she used to give money to the appellant. As such, the evidence of both these two witnesses is unbelievable the same being afterthoughts and subsequent improvements without any documentary evidence to support their evidence and they being partisan witnesses interested in proving their son to be innocent. 15. The appellant was admittedly attached to the Dadgiri out-post and as such he was at the disposal of Abdul Mondal. So, there was every likelihood of his having knowledge that Abdul Mondal had sold some lands and he kept such a huge amount in cash at his quarter. Therefore, although the appellant was detailed to accompany Abdul Mondal to Basugaon Police Station on the day of occurrence, he showed his difficulties to Basudev on the ground that he had some work at Khabrabari. This he told to Basudev over phone in the morning at about 6:30A.M., itself and did not show himself to anyone till Abdul Mondal departed leaving his wife alone in the quarter. As an attached driver, he had knowledge that Jahanara would be alone in the quarter if Abdul Mondal was away. This he told to Basudev over phone in the morning at about 6:30A.M., itself and did not show himself to anyone till Abdul Mondal departed leaving his wife alone in the quarter. As an attached driver, he had knowledge that Jahanara would be alone in the quarter if Abdul Mondal was away. But, he showed up immediately after Abdul Mondal left for Basugaon and never left for Khabrabari as he told to Basudev. This is clear from the conjoint reading of the evidence of both Sankar and Padvan. Sankar saw him driving his van back and forth in front of the house of Abdul Mondal at about 9 A.M. and Padvan also saw him playing Holi near his house. This would go to prove that immediately after departure of Abdul Mondal, appellant was loitering near his house waiting for an opportune moment to intrude his house. He was also seen in the Police Out-Post in the noon and this proves that he was present near the place of occurrence at the time of incident. 16. Besides, the fact that appellant was under financial obligation and was under dire necessity of money is proved by the evidence of Rohila, Khirod, Pradip and Nabadip, who have equivocally deposed that his father obtained a loan which was to be repaid with interest. It is their evidence that appellant repaid the loan with interest on the day of occurrence itself. But he could not offer any explanation as to from where he suddenly managed such a huge amount. He could not also explain as to how the sum of Rs.3,29,500/- which was looted from the house of Abdul Mondal was discovered under the floor of his father-in-law’s bed room, although he admitted showing the money to the police. He could not also explain the source from which such an amount came to his possession and he also did not state in his statement that his parents gave him that amount. On the contrary, his parents have said that they used to pay him money. As such, the plea taken by the appellant is false and hence it is an additional circumstance against him. 17. It is the evidence of Rupak, Dhiraj, Bishal, Kadam, Umseh and Abdul Mondal Malik that the appellant led them to the places where the knife, money and his clothes were kept. As such, the plea taken by the appellant is false and hence it is an additional circumstance against him. 17. It is the evidence of Rupak, Dhiraj, Bishal, Kadam, Umseh and Abdul Mondal Malik that the appellant led them to the places where the knife, money and his clothes were kept. Those were recovered from the house of his father-in-law and it is the evidence of his mother-Radha that appellant used to reside there. Besides, Basudev also deposed in his evidence that after the occurrence when Abdul Mondal asked him to bring the appellant, he found him in the house of his father-in-law. This proves that after committing the crime he went to his father-in-law’s house and concealed the money digging the floor of the bed and then burnt the knife to destroy the evidence. He also put his clothes in bucket with detergent to wash the blood stains. Although, he denied showing the knife, he admitted showing the money and clothes. It is crystal clear from the evidence that he choose the day of Holi to commit the crime in a pre-meditated manner. Holi is a festival of colour and he who plays Holi and gets himself smeared in multiple colours all over his face and body is hardly recognized. Even if he is stained with blood, the same could not be easily recognized and one may be easily confused with that of colour. Therefore, it can be safely held that he designed the crime in a planned manner. This fact is further strengthened by his conduct of concealing the money under the floor of the bed and burning the knife. Both the knife and the money were seized from such places in the house of his father-in-law that none but only appellant could say. It was not possible for any other person except the appellant to lead anyone to the places where the knife and especially the money were concealed. Therefore, this is conduct of the appellant is relevant and admissible in evidence although the admission made by him in presence of police is not admissible. This conduct of the appellant completes the chain of circumstances as a missing link. 18. The appellant had a motive to commit the crime. He was in need of money and for that he chose his victim-Jahanara. This conduct of the appellant completes the chain of circumstances as a missing link. 18. The appellant had a motive to commit the crime. He was in need of money and for that he chose his victim-Jahanara. He planned the crime on a day of Holi when everybody were in festive mood and were playing Holi. So, he avoided going with Abdul Mondal on false pretext of going to some other place knowing it fully well that Abdul Mondal would not cancel his trip and invariably go to Basugaon even if he did not accompany and told Basudev in the morning hours itself that he had work at Khabrabari. But he did not go to Khabrabari as he was seen loitering near the house of Abdul Mondal immediately after he left for Basugaon. He too played Holi near the house of Jahanara smearing himself in colours so that nobody could identify him and after committing the crime, he could slip unnoticed without any suspicion through everyone in broad day light. After committing the crime, he went to his father-in-law’s house and burnt the knife. Then he concealed it in the betel-nut tree plantation behind his house and also concealed the money under the floor of the bed. He then soaked his clothes-which were stained with both colour and blood-in detergent without drawing suspicion of anyone as it was normal to wash the clothes after playing Holi. Thereafter, he took some amount from the stolen sum and went to Khirod and repaid the loan. Khirod gave it to the cashier-Pradip. He also could not give any plausible explanation about the recovery of huge amount of loan from his possession. Thus, it is fully established that the chain of circumstances is complete and there is no missing link amongst the circumstances. 19. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is proper and hence not liable to be interfered with. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence against the appellant to prove that he alone was the perpetrator of the crime. As such, considering the circumstances having been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the chain being complete, we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The jail sentences shall however run concurrently.