JUDGMENT : G.K. Vyas, J. 1. In the instant criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. 1973 the appellants are challenging the judgment dated 31st of May, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Rajsamand in Session Case No. 1/2008, State vs. Rajesh @ Raju and Others, arisen out of F.I.R. No. 147/2007 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand, whereby both the appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 201, 302, 302/34 and 380 of IPC and following sentence was passed against them, which reads thus: 201 of IPC Three years' Rigour Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months? additional imprisonment. 380 of IPC Three years' Rigour Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months? additional imprisonment. Appellant No. 1 - Rajesh @ Raju 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months? additional imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 - Smt. Meena Ben 302/34 of IPC: Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, appellant, Rajesh @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Rajsamand (Trial Court) along with co-accused Prashant Joshi, for offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 201, 380 and 120B of IPC. 3. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, appellant, Rajesh @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Rajsamand (Trial Court) along with co-accused Prashant Joshi, for offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 201, 380 and 120B of IPC. 3. A written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by complainant Shambhoo Singh, in which following facts were disclosed by him: ^^lsok esa] Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk pkjHkqtk ftyk jktleUn ¼jktLFkku½ ÁkFkhZ & 'kEHkq flag firk Áse flag ijekj ¼jktiwr½ fuoklh ekuorksa dk xqM+k ¼pkSdh½A fo"k; & dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkus gsrqA egksn; th] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 24-10-2007 dks 'kke djhc 6%30 ihŒ,eŒ esa ekukorksa dk xqM+k pkSdh ij cSBk gqvk Fkk fd nslwjh uky dh rjQ ls ,d Vªd vk;k ftlds MªkbZoj us Vªd jksdj dgk fd iatkc eksM+ ukys esa ,d O;fDr dh yk'k dVs esa iSd gks iM+h gqbZ gS ikao utj vk jgs gSa ;g dgdj MªkbZoj pyk x;k fQj eSa o Ánhi flag th] ohjsUnz flag th] jokuk gks iatkc eksM+ esa vk;s tgka ns[kk rks jksM+ ds ckbZ rjQ ukys esa ,d dVk lQsn IykfLVd dk dVk ftlesa ,d O;fDr dh yk'k iSd dh gqbZ iM+h ftlds ikao utj vk jgs gS mDr vKkr O;fDr dh yk'k dks dksbZ vKkr cnek'k gR;k dj lcwr feVkus dh xjt ls ;gka ykdj Mkydj pys x;s gS fjiksVZ djrk gaw dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djsA fnukad 24-10-2007 ÁkFkhZ 'kEHkw flagA** 4. Upon the aforesaid written report, the S.H.O. Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand, registered a case vide F.I.R. No. 147/2007 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and commenced the investigation. The S.H.O. Police Station Charbhuja, went on the spot, where dead body of deceased was lying. "Panchnama" of the dead body of the deceased was prepared at 08.15 AM on 25.10.2007 and details of condition of the dead body were recorded in the "Panchnama". Site Plan (Ex.P/3) was prepared along with existing details of place where dead body was found. The dead body was lying in a white colour plastic bag. The said plastic bag was taken in possession vide Ex.P/4. Samples of simple & blood stained soil, and clothes were taken in possession and the same were sealed vide Ex.P/5. Site Plan (Ex.P/3) was prepared along with existing details of place where dead body was found. The dead body was lying in a white colour plastic bag. The said plastic bag was taken in possession vide Ex.P/4. Samples of simple & blood stained soil, and clothes were taken in possession and the same were sealed vide Ex.P/5. The dead body of the deceased was taken to Primary Health Centre, Kelwara, where the same was subjected to postmortem by the medical officer. The medical officer gave postmortem report (Ex.P/52) on 26.10.2007. 5. During investigation, photography of the place where dead body was recovered was done and photographs Ex.P/33 to Ex.P/50 were exhibited during trial and videography of the place where dead body of deceased was recovered, was also done vide Ex.P/32. 6. After postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over for cremation. During investigation, accused Rajesh @ Raju was arrested vide Ex.P/78 on 26.10.2007 at 04.00 PM. Another accused Prashant Joshi was arrested vide Ex.P/71 on 26.10.2007 at 04.15 PM in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Puran Singh and Mukesh Kumar, constables of Police Station Charbhuja. Accused appellant Smt. Meena Ben was also arrested vide Ex.P/17 in the presence of Mahesh Chand and Babulal, constables of Police Station Charbhuja on 27.10.2007 at 07.15 PM. A formal F.I.R. No. 147/2007 was registered vide Ex.P/67 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 7. Upon information given by accused appellant Rajesh @ Raju Patel, one iron hammer ¼gekenLrk½ and blood stained clothes of deceased Kirti Bhai, and blood stained clothes of accused Rajesh @ Raju, so also, currency notes of Rs. 5,50,000/- and TVS Motorcycle (RJ-27-SC-7438) were recovered vide Ex.P/22 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Ram Bhai and Govind Bhai. All the recovered articles were seized. The site plan of place of recovery (Ex.P/23) was also prepared. The pieces of stone tiles and control sample of stone were recovered vide Ex.P/24 from the house of accused appellant, Rajesh @ Raju. As per information of the accused appellant, Rajesh, Rs. 2,00,000/- were recovered from one Mahesh Bhai of Royal Shopping Centre, Shop No. 111 of Udaipur. The said amount was paid by Rajesh @ Raju, to satisfy the recovery of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Mahesh Bhai. The recovery of Rs. 2 lacs was made vide Ex.P/25 on 25.10.2007 at the instance of accused appellant Rajesh. 2,00,000/- were recovered from one Mahesh Bhai of Royal Shopping Centre, Shop No. 111 of Udaipur. The said amount was paid by Rajesh @ Raju, to satisfy the recovery of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Mahesh Bhai. The recovery of Rs. 2 lacs was made vide Ex.P/25 on 25.10.2007 at the instance of accused appellant Rajesh. The site plan was also prepared and the place of occurrence was also verified by accused appellant Smt. Meena Ben vide Ex.P/27 in the presence of Ram Bhai and Govind Bhai. Accused appellant, Prashant Joshi who has been acquitted from the charge, gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recovery of place where after causing death of Kirti Bhai, the dead body was put by the accused persons in the rented house of Rajesh. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered upon information given by Prashant Joshi vide Ex.P/29 on 29.10.2007 at 06.55 PM. The washing cloth ¼iksNk½ and wiper used for cleaning the blood, was recovered as per information given by Smt. Meena Ben vide Ex.P/31 on 29.10.2007 at 02.00 PM. All the recoveries were made in the presence of two witnesses, Ram Bhai and Govind Bhai. 8. After completing of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused appellant, Rajesh @ Raju, his wife Smt. Meena Ben and Prashant Joshi, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kumbhalgarh under Sections 302, 201, 380 and 120B of IPC, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Rajsamand and later on it was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Rajsamand for trial. 9. In the trial, charges under Sections 302, 302/34, 201, 380 and 120B IPC were framed after providing opportunity of hearing to both the appellants and Prashant Joshi, but they denied the charges and prayed for trial. 10. During trial, statements of 23 witnesses were recorded in support of prosecution case and thereafter statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973 in which they denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that case is totally false and they do not know the deceased and prayed for leading evidence in defence. In defence statements of one witness DW.1-Nandlal Joshi were recorded and thereafter final arguments were heard. 11. In defence statements of one witness DW.1-Nandlal Joshi were recorded and thereafter final arguments were heard. 11. The learned trial court after considering the circumstantial evidence of recovery held the accused appellant, Rajesh @ Raju and his wife Smt. Meena Ben, for offence under Sections 302, 201, 302/34 and 380 IPC and passed sentence mentioned above. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is no eyewitness of the case and the entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence of recovery. The cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to draw an inference of innocence in favour of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that circumstantial evidence of strong suspicion are legally sufficient to convict an accused, however, without any conclusive evidence such circumstantial cannot be said to be sufficient to justify the conviction of the accused appellants, therefore, the judgment impugned which is based upon circumstantial evidence, deserves to be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that in any event on the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused, must be accepted and in this case, appellant Rajesh @ Raju has been convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of recovery of some cash, which is alleged to have been received by deceased Kirti Bhai, recovery of weapon of offence, a hammer, blood-stained cloths of deceased, as also the blood stained cloths of the appellant. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the fact that blood stained cloths allegedly to be of deceased, Kirti Bhai were of Kirti Bhai, and no identification of the cloths was conducted by the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to show that as to what was the blood group of accused appellant Rajesh and, therefore, the possibility of blood on the cloths being of the accused appellant himself cannot be ruled out. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that basic element of motive is conspicuously missing in this case. There is no evidence on record to show that as to what was the blood group of accused appellant Rajesh and, therefore, the possibility of blood on the cloths being of the accused appellant himself cannot be ruled out. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that basic element of motive is conspicuously missing in this case. It could not be established beyond shadows of reasonable doubt that the money which has been recovered from appellant Rajesh in furtherance of information furnished by him under section 27 of the Evidence Act, was received by the deceased Kirti Bhai which was allegedly stolen by appellant Rajesh and reliance is made in this respect is placed in the statements of PW-21-Arvind Bhai, but his evidence is of no substance and fairly does not establish the fact that the recovery of money from the appellant was the same money which was sent by PW-21-Arvind Bhai to appellant Rajesh. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of Smt. Meena Ben (wife of accused appellant Rajesh @ Raju) is on the same footing as of the case of Prashant Joshi, who was acquitted by the learned trial court. Even if the entire evidence is accepted, then also, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to connect Smt. Meena Ben, with the alleged crime of murder under section 302 or 302/34 of IPC. Therefore, she is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against her to the extent of offence under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, therefore, it is a fit case in which judgment impugned deserves to be quashed because one of important ingredient of motive is absent in this case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis circumstantial evidence of recovery of currency, blood stained cloths and other evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is a case in which for getting Rs. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is a case in which for getting Rs. 8,00,000/- of the deceased, the deceased was murdered by appellants Rajesh @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben, in their rented house and during investigation, information was given by them for recovery of currency notes as well as blood stained cloths were recovered at the instance of accused appellant, Rajesh @ Raju, therefore, the chain of circumstance is fully complete so as to drawn a conclusion that accused appellant have committed offence of murder of Kirti Bhai to take money of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that evidence to support circumstance is led by the prosecution and it is proved that deceased was murdered by accused appellants and none else; therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the entire evidence on record and finding of learned trial court based upon circumstantial evidence of recovery of currency notes, hammer (weapon of offence) and blood stained cloths of deceased as well as of accused appellants, and find that there was any motive of killing deceased, Kirti Bhai. Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was found near "Punjab Mod Nala." According to statements of PW-4-Kamu Bhai, he is partner in the firm M/s. S. Arvind Courier Company situated in Udaipur, in which deceased Kirti Bhai S/o Kashiram Bhati was manger before his death. PW-4-Kamu Bhai further stated on oath that Rajesh, Chirag, Nandlal Patel and Prashant were employee in the said courier company at Udaipur Branch. This witness was desirous to purchase a house in Udaipur, therefore, some conversations were going on in between him and deceased, Kirti Bhai. The witness Kamu Bhai (PW-4) categorically stated that Rs. 8 lacs were sent by him through Arvind Bhai on 22.10.2007 at Udaipur and the said currency were 600 notes of Rs. 1000/- and 400 notes of Rs. 500/-. The said amount was sent as an advance for purchasing house in Udaipur and in the morning at 11'O Clock on 22.10.2007 a telephonic call was made to Kirti Bhai, who apprised him that he has received the amount of Rs. 8 lacs. 1000/- and 400 notes of Rs. 500/-. The said amount was sent as an advance for purchasing house in Udaipur and in the morning at 11'O Clock on 22.10.2007 a telephonic call was made to Kirti Bhai, who apprised him that he has received the amount of Rs. 8 lacs. Thereafter, at 3'O Clock, another call was made by him which was replied by Prashant Joshi, and when asked him to talk with Kirti Bhai, it was informed that he has left the house at 2'O clock while saying that I am coming back within ten minutes. 20. Witness PW-4 Kamu Bhai further stated on oath that reputedly he made phone calls, but it was replied by the employees that Kirti Bhai was not in the offence till 8'O clock, in the evening Rajesh received his phone call and informed that Kirti Bhai has not come back, therefore, said witness and Arvind Bhai left Ahmadabad for Udaipur and in the morning at 4'O clock, they reached Udaipur on 23.10.2007. When they reached in the office, Prashant Joshi and Chirag were sleeping and upon enquiry being made from them about Kirti Bhai, they again replied that he has not come back. An enquiry was made from appellant Rajesh @ Raju and his wife who were residing in Udaipur. Accused Rajesh @ Raju informed that I am coming to office and thereafter he came in the office at 09.30 AM and upon enquiry he said that I do not know as to where deceased Kirti Bhai had gone. Till 12'O Clock, search was made by Rajesh @ Raju, Prashant, Chirag and Kamu Bhai. Thereafter a missing persons report was submitted at Police Station Bhuplpura, Udaipur. After registration of MPR, efforts were made by PW-4-Kamu Bhai, Kedar Bhai, Rajesh, Prashant and Chirag but his whereabouts were not known. Thereafter Rajesh @ Raju went to Mehsana while saying that there is date in a case on 24.10.2007. Appellant Rajesh @ Raju took his children and wife with him at Mehsana. In the morning on 24.10.2007, Kamu Bhai, Kedar both went Police Station Bhupalpura and enquired about any information with respect to Kirti Bhai (deceased). 21. Thereafter Rajesh @ Raju went to Mehsana while saying that there is date in a case on 24.10.2007. Appellant Rajesh @ Raju took his children and wife with him at Mehsana. In the morning on 24.10.2007, Kamu Bhai, Kedar both went Police Station Bhupalpura and enquired about any information with respect to Kirti Bhai (deceased). 21. On 24.10.2007 in whole day search was made but till 7'O Clock no phone call was received from Raju and thereafter information was given to Raju by Kamu Bhai to come back Udaipur because Kirthi Bhai has not been searched out. The witness PW-4-Kamu Bhai specifically stated on oath that on 25.10.2007 enquiry was made from accused Prashant Joshi, then he informed that on 23.10.2007 at 2'O Clock, a phone call was received by Kirti Bhai and thereafter Kirti Bhai (deceased) left the office along with Rajesh Patel @ Raju (accused appellant). Prashant Joshi gave information that he saw by his own eyes that Kirti Bhai had gone with Rajesh on his bike. 22. Upon consideration of this evidence, it is abundantly clear that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was paid by PW-4-Kamu Bhai to deceased Kirti Bhai for purchasing house in Udaipur and the said amount was lying with Kirti Bhai. It is also evident from the evidence on record that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 22.10.2007 at 2'O Clock deceased left the office and went along with Rajesh Patel @ Raju as per information given by Prashant Joshi, before his arrest. The investigating officer made investigation from Raju Patel and during investigation recovered blood stained cloths of the deceased and blood stained cloths of Rajesh @ Raju, so also, recovered a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- hammer from the rented house of Rajesh @ Raju. 23. The place where dead body was thrown was identified by both the accused appellants. It is also evident from that as per information given by Smt. Meena Ben, washing cloth and wiper which were used in cleaning the floor of the room where deceased was murdered, were recovered as per information given by her from the house, where Rajesh @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben were residing. 24. It is also evident from that as per information given by Smt. Meena Ben, washing cloth and wiper which were used in cleaning the floor of the room where deceased was murdered, were recovered as per information given by her from the house, where Rajesh @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben were residing. 24. Upon consideration of entire evidence coupled with finding of learned trial court, we are of the opinion that circumstantial evidence, which is available on record, loudly speaks that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Kirti Bhai was murdered in the rented house of Rajesh Patel @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben and thereafter his dead body was lifted from the house and thrown at the place known as Punjab Mod Nala. The witnesses of recovery, viz. Govind Bhai and the investigating officer categorically stated before the court that recovery of currency as well as hammer, blood stained cloths were made as per information given by accused appellant. 25. PW-6-Chandkant S/o Prahlad Bai, was the counsel who proved the fact that Rs. 8 lacs were sent by PW-4 Kamu Bhai to Kirti Bhai (deceased) on 22.10.2007. PW-9 Shailesh, stated before the court that Kirthi Bhai was his cousin brother and he was manager of M/s. S. Arvind Courier Company and information was given by PW-4 Kamu Bhai to him that Kirti Bhai is missing since 22.10.2007. 26. PW-10 Daulat Singh who was deputed in the office of Superintendent of Police on 24.10.2007, on receipt of information one telephone reached at the place where the dead body of deceased was found along with police party and proved the fact of photography of the site where dead body was recovered, done by him. 27. PW-11 Mahesh Bhai, stated on oath that on 22.10.2007 at 05.00 PM, Rajesh @ Raju made a phone call from Mehta's Chamber, and asked him to collect Rs. 2 lacs which were outstanding qua him and the same amount was paid on the same day at 05.30 PM. The said sum of Rs. 2 lacs was received from his house by the police vide Ex.P/25. 28. PW-12-Dr. Sudheer Sharma, categorically proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/52). PW-14 Pradeep Jain, who was working as Senior Scientist at FSL on 25.10.2007 stated that he was called by the police at the place where dead body of the deceased was found. The said sum of Rs. 2 lacs was received from his house by the police vide Ex.P/25. 28. PW-12-Dr. Sudheer Sharma, categorically proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/52). PW-14 Pradeep Jain, who was working as Senior Scientist at FSL on 25.10.2007 stated that he was called by the police at the place where dead body of the deceased was found. The dead body was inspected by said witness. Said witness PW-14 Pradeep Jain also went to the house of the accused appellants where blood spot testing was done. Blood spots were found on the wall of latrine and manhole, which were photographed. The blood which was found on the floor was sent for chemical examination to the FSL. The said witness categorically stated that he had prepared enquiry report of the place of occurrence vide Ex.P/58 and there is evidence that deceased was murdered in the house to grab Rs. 8 lacs, out of which Rs. 5,50,000/- were recovered from the house of accused appellant Rajesh @ Raju and Rs. 2,00,000/- were recovered from Mahesh Bhai, to whom the accused appellant paid the said sum to satisfy his outstanding. Further a sum of Rs. 50,000/- were recovered from Prashant Joshi, however for want of evidence he has been acquitted from the charges. 29. PW-22 Bhawani Singh, was the then SHO of Police Station Charbhuja on 24.10.2007 who proved the investigation and also proved that a Santro Car No. RJ-27-CA-3936 of Rajesh was recovered, in which dead body of Kirti Bhai (deceased) was taken to "Desuri Ki Naal." The circumstances loudly speaks that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 30. Upon consideration of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that there is no strength in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution has not preferred its case beyond reasonable doubt against Smt. Meena Ben because she was very much present in the house when deceased, Kirti Bhai was murdered by her husband Rajesh @ Raju. It is also proved that she washed/cleaned the floor upon which blood was lying and as per her information, washing cloth and wiper, which were used in cleaning the floor, were recovered. Meaning thereby, there is ample evidence available on record to prove the fact that she has participated in commission of the crime. 31. It is also proved that she washed/cleaned the floor upon which blood was lying and as per her information, washing cloth and wiper, which were used in cleaning the floor, were recovered. Meaning thereby, there is ample evidence available on record to prove the fact that she has participated in commission of the crime. 31. We have also considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to appellant Smt. Meena Ben. Learned trial court has acquitted Prashant Joshi for the reason that there was no evidence with regard to his presence at the house of Rajesh @ Raju, therefore, it cannot be said that case of appellant Smt. Meena Ben is similar to the case of Prashant Joshi, who has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 32. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, if the allegation is based on circumstantial evidence. The following parameters/guidelines are laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:- "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between may be proved and must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between may be and must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (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. 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. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case bases on circumstantial evidence." 33. Upon assessment of entire circumstantial evidence of recovery of currency notes, hammer and blood stained cloths and evidence of expert/scientist, in which it is reported that blood was found in the latrine as well as in the house of accused appellants Rajesh @ Raju and Smt. Meena Ben, the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt because in the FSL report (Ex.P/58), it is reported that blood was found upon all the articles and blood was detected in the room and toilet of the accused appellants. 34. Upon assessment of the evidence, complete chain of circumstantial evidence has been established by the prosecution, therefore, there is no question to disturb the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court against the accused appellant. 35. In view of above discussion, there is no force in the instant criminal appeal. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed.