JUDGMENT : C.V. BHADANG, J. Both these appeals, arise out of the conviction and sentence of the appellants in Sessions Case No. 27/2011/I, by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. As such, the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case, shorn of minor details, may be stated thus: That, now deceased, Anand Pal, was the husband of accused no. 1, Smt. Lalsa Pal. The accused no. 2, Shri Kaushal Kumar hails from the native place of the accused no. 1 and the deceased from Uttar Pradesh. They were neighbours. According to the prosecution, there was a love affair between the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2. After the marriage of the accused no. 1 with the deceased, they shifted to Goa. Shortly prior to the incident, accused no. 2 also shifted to Goa. According to the prosecution, the deceased was serving in Merchant Navy and used to be on voyage for a considerable period. The accused no. 2 used to meet accused no. 1 in the absence of the deceased. The deceased and the accused no. 1 are blessed with two children i.e. a son and a daughter. It is the material prosecution case that both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Anand Pal at Flat No. C-F-1, Housing Board Colony, Upasnagar, Sancoale, by assaulting the deceased with a wooden log. Both the accused, tried to pretend that some robbers had entered the house and assaulted the victim and committed robbery of the gold ornaments, belonging to the accused no. 1. In that attempt, accused no. 1 was shown to be tied with a dupatta, just to camouflage the real incident. Be that as it may, on the basis of a complaint lodged, an offence came to be registered against the appellants, for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, carried out the spot panchanama of the spot of occurrence, conducted seizure, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, statement of witnesses including that of the neighbours of the deceased came to be recorded and the seized articles were sent for the report of the Chemical Analyser. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, carried out the spot panchanama of the spot of occurrence, conducted seizure, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, statement of witnesses including that of the neighbours of the deceased came to be recorded and the seized articles were sent for the report of the Chemical Analyser. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco-da-Gama, which was eventually committed to the Sessions Court at Margao and was registered as Sessions Case No. 27/2011/I. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence is one of total denial and of false implication. As noticed earlier, the defence was that there was house breaking and robbery in the flat where the deceased and the accused no. 1 were residing, in which the deceased was assaulted and the gold ornaments belonging to the accused no. 1 were stolen away. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 30 witnesses and produced the record of the investigation. The appellants neither entered into the witness box nor examined any defence witness. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed a solitary point as to whether, the prosecution has proved that the appellants/accused in furtherance of their common intention murdered Anand Pal. The learned Sessions Judge answered the point in the affirmative and proceeded to convict the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC, by judgment and order dated 05.06.2015. By the subsequent order dated 23.06.2015, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court. 6. We have heard Shri Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Phaldessai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have extensively gone through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 7. Shri Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the investigation in this case is faulty, which has caused material prejudice to the appellants. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have extensively gone through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 7. Shri Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the investigation in this case is faulty, which has caused material prejudice to the appellants. In order to elaborate the said ground, it is submitted that the neighbours of the deceased, ought to have been made panchas, at the time of various panchanamas and the fact that the neighbours are not made panchas, would show that the investigation was tainted. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to take the chance finger prints from the wooden log, which is the weapon of the offence or from the door or any other articles found in the house. It is pointed out that the Investigating Officer had engaged the services of a dog squad, however, there is no report as to the result of such exercise. 8. It is next submitted that the test for blood grouping was inconclusive as found by the local CFSL and the report from the CFSL, Hyderabad is not acceptable. It is submitted that the sample is examined after four months and the recovery of the blood stains on the shirt of the accused no. 2, is doubtful as there is possibility of planting. It is submitted that all the police officers associated with the investigation are not examined. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer did not draw a sketch of the scene of the offence, which would have thrown light on the possibility of the incident having happened, as claimed on behalf of the appellants. 9. It is next submitted that the statements of the neighbours namely, Shri Vijayan Alokkan (PW-2), Shri Deepak Gaonkar (PW-3), Shri Rajbir Singh (PW-4), Smt. Diksha Gaonkar (PW-5), Smt. Preeti Alokkan (PW-6) and Master Pratik Pal (PW- 28) (who is the son of the deceased and the accused no. 1), were recorded belatedly, which strikes at the root of the veracity of their evidence. 10. It is next submitted that the recovery effected by Shekhar Naik (PW-15), cannot be said to be one under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned Counsel was at pains to point out that the recovery is from an open space, which is thickly populated and thus, becomes doubtful. 10. It is next submitted that the recovery effected by Shekhar Naik (PW-15), cannot be said to be one under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned Counsel was at pains to point out that the recovery is from an open space, which is thickly populated and thus, becomes doubtful. The learned Counsel pointed out that the presence of blood stains on the wooden log, is improbable as there is evidence that it was raining, shortly before the recovery and the wooden log was obtained from an open public place. It is submitted that the motive is not proved in this case, which assumes significance in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that there was no recovery of any incriminating material from the flat, so as to establish motive. 11. Lastly, it is submitted that the case essentially rests on circumstantial evidence, where the individual circumstances have to be properly established and have to be of a conclusive nature and all the circumstances taken together should form a complete chain, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The learned Counsel strenuously urged that this is a case where the individual circumstances are neither proved nor taken together form a complete chain, so as to point to the guilt of the appellants. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has basically proceeded on conjectures and surmises and suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of proof. It is submitted that admittedly, there was no light/electricity at the time of the incident and thus, it was not possible for any of the witnesses to have seen or identified the assailants. The first informant, who gave the information has not been identified. 12. On behalf of the appellants, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ciani Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2009 16 SCC 479 , Ramanlal & Another Vs. State of Haryana, 2015 11 SCC 1 , State of U.P. Vs. Sunil, AIR 2017 SC 2150 , the decision of this Court in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar Vs. State, 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 2280 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Vs. State of Delhi, MANU/DE/0268/2015. He therefore submits that the appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted. 13. Sunil, AIR 2017 SC 2150 , the decision of this Court in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar Vs. State, 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 2280 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Vs. State of Delhi, MANU/DE/0268/2015. He therefore submits that the appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted. 13. On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Phaldessai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the individual circumstances have been properly established and are of a conclusive nature. It is submitted that the motive is properly established in this case, particularly, when the near relations of the accused no. 1, have stated about the intimacy between the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2. It is submitted that the evidence of the neighbours is also clear on the point and is suggestive of the fact that there was a love affair between the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 and the intention behind causing the death of Anand Pal was to get rid of him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has adverted to the various contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that none of the contentions can be accepted. It is submitted that the evidence on the contrary clearly shows that the accused no. 1 had asked her son, Master Pratik Pal (PW-28) to call the neighbours, just to ensure that the neighbours had an occasion to see her in a condition in which she was tied by a duppatta, so that both the accused can pretend that there was an incident of robbery, in which, the deceased was assaulted. He therefore submits that no case for interference is made out. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival circumstances and the submissions made. It would be worthwhile to set out the nature of the prosecution evidence led in this case as follows:- (A) Neighbours:- 1. Shri Vijayan Alokkan (PW-2) 2. Shri Deepak Gaonkar (PW-3) 3. Shri Rajbir Singh (PW-4) 4. Smt. Diksha Gaonkar (PW-5) 5. Smt. Preeti Alokkan (PW-6) (B) Panch Witnesses:- 1. Shri Sidhanath Pande (PW-7) 2. Shri Krishna Vishwas (PW-10) 3. Shri Raghunath Bandodkar (PW-13) 4. Shri Bhoj Naik (PW-14) 5. Shri Shekhar Naik (PW-15) 6. Shri Pradeep Tamankar (PW-16) 7. Shri Dilip Kunkolienkar (PW-18) 8. Ms. Madhavi Kunkolienkar (PW-20) 9. Mrs. Nora D'Silva (PW-23) (C) Expert Witnesses:- 1. Smt. Preeti Alokkan (PW-6) (B) Panch Witnesses:- 1. Shri Sidhanath Pande (PW-7) 2. Shri Krishna Vishwas (PW-10) 3. Shri Raghunath Bandodkar (PW-13) 4. Shri Bhoj Naik (PW-14) 5. Shri Shekhar Naik (PW-15) 6. Shri Pradeep Tamankar (PW-16) 7. Shri Dilip Kunkolienkar (PW-18) 8. Ms. Madhavi Kunkolienkar (PW-20) 9. Mrs. Nora D'Silva (PW-23) (C) Expert Witnesses:- 1. Shri Mahendra Bhandare (PW-1) 2. Shri P. Vijay Shankar (PW-11) 3. Shri Rakesh Achrekar (PW-12) 4. Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17) (D) Relations of Accused No. 1:- 1.Shri Rambali Pal, uncle of Accused No. 1 (PW-25) 2. Shri Ram Prasad Pal, father of Accused No. 1 (PW-26) 3. Shri Surendra Kumar, cousin of the deceased (PW-29) 4. Master Pratik Pal, son of the Accused No. 1 and the deceased (PW-28) (E) Medical Witnesses:- 1. Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar (PW-21) 2. Dr. Girish Kamat (PW-27) (F) Other Witnesses:- 1. Shri Dinkar Korgaonkar (PW-8) 2. Shri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-9) 3. Shri Sarvesh Tiwari, Employer of the Accused No.2 (PW-19) 4. Shri Nishikant Chodankar (PW-24) 5. Smt. Auda Viegas, NGO (PW-22) 6. Shri Rajan Nigalye, Investigating Officer (PW-30) 15. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits, it would be necessary to examine whether, Anand Pal died a homicidal death. There was no serious dispute on this aspect, however, in case involving charge under Section 302 of IPC, it is necessary to examine this issue. Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar (PW- 21) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anand Pal on 17.07.2011 and the post-mortem report is produced at Exhibit- 83. The Medical Officer found one injury on the head of Anand Pal, in the form of a depressed contusion of 19 cms. x 8.5 cms., obliquely placed in antero posterior direction over frontoparieto temporal region of right side of the scalp. At the distal end of this injury, there was laceration of 4 cms. x 2 cms. The Medical Officer also found a resultant side to side compression of the entire skull with underlying compound fractures of right side frontoparieto temporal bone into multiple pieces. There was corresponding internal injury in the form of “contusions and lacerations” on the brain with subdural and subaronoid hemorrhage all over the brain. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to craniocerebral damage vide injury no. There was corresponding internal injury in the form of “contusions and lacerations” on the brain with subdural and subaronoid hemorrhage all over the brain. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to craniocerebral damage vide injury no. 1, caused by blunt object and was antemortem in nature and fresh at the time of death and was necessarily fatal. 16. The Medical Officer (PW-21) has collected the blood samples for grouping, however, no conclusive finding could be reached as the sample was hemolysed. Be that as it may, the wooden triangular log, which according to the prosecution, is the weapon of the offence (M.O. No. 16/Exhibit-10) was shown to the witness and he in categorical terms stated that the injury no. 1 including the “signature fracture” could be caused by one of the edge of the wooden log. In the cross examination, the Medical Officer has stated that the “signature fracture” means the fracture that takes the shape of the object, which has caused it. Nothing significant has been brought out in the cross examination of this witness. From the evidence of this witness (PW-21) and the post-mortem report (Exhibit-83), it is clearly established that Anand Pal died a homicidal death. The question is whether, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention have caused the death of Anant Pal. 17. The prosecution case is evidently based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye witness account of the incident available on record. The law relating to appreciation of evidence, in the case of the present nature, is too well settled to be restated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 has culled out the following principles: “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' 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 and 5. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and 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.” It can thus be seen that the individual circumstances, relied on behalf of the prosecution, should be of a conclusive nature and should be properly established. All such circumstances, taken together should form a complete chain so as to unerringly point out to the guilt of the accused. The inference arising out of such chain should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should also be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. After noticing the well established principles, at the outset, we may state that whether or not, the individual circumstances have been established or whether, they form a complete chain or not, so as to point to the guilt of the accused, would evidently depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 18. Let us now advert to the individual circumstances, which have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge as under:- (I) Motive and creation of a concocted story by the appellants:- Motive is an important circumstance and assumes significance in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case is that there was intimacy and love affair between the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2, which made them to commit murder of Anand Pal, so as to eliminate him. It is undisputed that the deceased was serving in Merchant Navy and used to be on ship for a considerable period and the accused no. 1 was residing in the flat along with their two children. It is also not in dispute that shortly prior to the incident, the accused no. 2 had shifted to Goa. Master Pratik Pal (PW-28) is the son of the deceased and the accused no. 1, who at the time when his evidence was recorded was 12 years of age and was schooling in 7th standard. It is also not in dispute that shortly prior to the incident, the accused no. 2 had shifted to Goa. Master Pratik Pal (PW-28) is the son of the deceased and the accused no. 1, who at the time when his evidence was recorded was 12 years of age and was schooling in 7th standard. He states that his father who was an Engineer used to work on a ship and used to return home after 6 to 7 months and used to stay with them for about a month. He states that during the absence of his father, some of their relatives from the State of U.P. were visiting their house in Goa. His “uncle” by name Kaushal (accused no. 2) used to visit their house in Goa during the absence of his father. The accused no. 1 had told him that accused no. 2 is his maternal uncle. He specifically stated that accused no. 2 used to visit their house and used to leave some days prior to the return of his father and that accused no. 2 used to stay in their house during the absence of his father. 19. He further states that in the month of July, 2011, his father (deceased) returned from the ship and in the night of the occurrence, he along with his mother (accused no. 1) and his sister were sleeping on the bed, while his father (deceased) was sleeping on the floor. He stated that in the night he heard some sound. Then he heard someone calling him, so he went to the other room and he saw that his mother (accused no. 1) was tied with a dupatta. One aunty, who was their neighbour released his mother. At that time one uncle asked his mother (accused no. 1) as to where his father (deceased) was, to which his mother (accused no. 1) informed that someone has killed him. This witness had seen his father (deceased) sleeping on the floor and blood coming out of the mouth of the deceased. We have carefully gone through the evidence of this witness and there is nothing in the cross examination, so as to dislodge his evidence. What has significantly come on record in the evidence of PW-28 is that accused no. 2 used to visit their house in the absence of the deceased. 20. We have carefully gone through the evidence of this witness and there is nothing in the cross examination, so as to dislodge his evidence. What has significantly come on record in the evidence of PW-28 is that accused no. 2 used to visit their house in the absence of the deceased. 20. We then have the evidence of Shri Rambali Pal (PW- 25), who is the uncle of accused no. 1, while Shri Ram Prasad Pal (PW-26), who is the father of the accused no. 1 and Shri Surendra Kumar (PW-29), who is the cousin of the deceased, Anand Pal. These witnesses have stated that the marriage between accused no. 1 and the deceased, Anand Pal was performed in Banaras and after that, deceased and the accused no. 1 came down to Goa. It is come on record that accused no. 1 and her two children had attended the marriage of one Soniya, who is the cousin of accused no. 1, somewhere in May 2010 and had stayed for a period of one month and then returned back to Goa. It is the material evidence that accused no. 2 was the next door neighbour of Shri Rambali Pal (PW-25) and Shri Ramprasad Pal (PW-26) at Ghajipur, U.P. It is stated that in May 2011, accused no. 2 came down to Goa and that he was friendly with accused no. 1. Ramprasad Pal (PW-26), father of the accused no. 1 had warned her not to keep any relation with Kaushal Kumar (accused no. 2). This was prior to the marriage of the accused no. 1 and the deceased. On 16.07.2011, both these witnesses (PW-25 and PW-26), had come down to Goa on receiving the information of this incident. PW- 25 and PW-26 stated that accused no. 1 had informed that it was accused no. 2, who killed the deceased and she also stated that her gold ornaments were stolen. Be that as it may, we are conscious that no much evidentiary value can be attached to the said statement of accused no. 1, which cannot be said to be a extrajudicial confession, but is a statement by the accused implicating a co-accused, which cannot be relied upon. However, the fact remains that PW-25 and PW-26, who are the near relatives of accused no. 1 have ventured to state in no uncertain terms that there was intimacy between the accused no. 1, which cannot be said to be a extrajudicial confession, but is a statement by the accused implicating a co-accused, which cannot be relied upon. However, the fact remains that PW-25 and PW-26, who are the near relatives of accused no. 1 have ventured to state in no uncertain terms that there was intimacy between the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 and prior to marriage, accused no. 1 was warned by her father (PW-26) not to keep any relations with accused no. 2. Not only that, there is evidence on record that after the marriage of the accused no. 1 with the deceased and shortly prior to the incident, accused no. 2 had shifted to Goa. Apart from the fact that the evidence of PW-25 and PW-26 is not shaken in the cross examination, the evidence coming from the close relations of the accused no. 1, has a high probative value in order to discern the nature of the relationship between the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2. Thus, one thing is clearly established that there was intimacy between accused no. 1 and accused no. 2, since prior to the marriage of accused no. 1 and the deceased and accused no. 2 used to visit the house of the accused no. 1 particularly, when the deceased was away on the ship. The evidence of Shri Vijayan Alokkan (PW-2), Shri Deepak Gaonkar (PW-3), Shri Rajbir Singh (PW-4), Smt. Diksha Gaonkar (PW-5) and Smt. Preeti Alokkan (PW-6), who are the neighbours of the deceased, is also clear on the point of the visits of the accused no. 2 to the house of the accused no. 1. The question is whether, this circumstance, taken with the other relevant circumstances, can bolster up the prosecution case of the appellants having intentionally caused the death of Anand Pal, in furtherance of their common intention. We propose to revert back to the aspect of the concocted story made up by the appellants a little later. We however find that the first circumstance about the possible motive, as has been urged on behalf of the prosecution is clearly established. (II) The presence of the accused no. 2 in the vicinity of the scene of offence, shortly prior to the date and time of the incident:- 21. This takes us to the second circumstance of presence of the accused no. (II) The presence of the accused no. 2 in the vicinity of the scene of offence, shortly prior to the date and time of the incident:- 21. This takes us to the second circumstance of presence of the accused no. 2 in the vicinity of the scene of offence, shortly before the date and time of the incident. At the outset, it needs to be stated that this is not a circumstance in the nature of a last seen together theory, nonetheless it is a relevant circumstance. In this regard, it is necessary to look into the evidence of witness Shri Deepak Gaonkar (PW-3) and his wife Smt. Diksha Gaonkar (PW-5). It has come in their evidence that Flat No. C-S-1 is above Flat No. C-F-1 of the deceased. That on 15.07.2011, Deepak Gaonkar (PW-3) had gone out for a walk after the dinner and while coming back he (PW-3) had seen the accused no. 2 hiding behind an unoccupied bungalow. In our view, although, the learned Sessions Judge is right in holding that this is not a circumstance in which the last seen theory would be applicable, the presence of the accused in the vicinity near the house of the deceased, on the night of 15.07.2011 stands established. (III) Recovery of the weapon of assault at the instance of the accused no. 2:- 22. This is an important circumstance which if proved would be clearly of an incriminating nature. The incident occurred in the night intervening between 15.07.2011 and 16.07.2011. The accused no. 2 was arrested on 16.07.2011 itself. Shri Shekhar Naik (PW-15) is the panch witness to the recovery of the weapon of assault along with one Santosh Sawant. It is the evidence of Shri Shekhar Naik (PW-15) that the accused no. 2, while in the custody of police, gave a statement showing his willingness to show the weapon of assault and the SIM card. The panchanama was accordingly recorded between 4:00 p.m. to 4:20 p.m. at Verna Police Station on 17.07.2011. The accused no. 2 then led the police and the panchas towards Vasco. When they reached near Meta Strip factory, the accused no. 2 led them to the Housing Board Colony. The accused no. 2 then took them to a distance of about 100 metres. The accused no. 2 then pointed out the place, where the wooden log was found in the grass. The accused no. When they reached near Meta Strip factory, the accused no. 2 led them to the Housing Board Colony. The accused no. 2 then took them to a distance of about 100 metres. The accused no. 2 then pointed out the place, where the wooden log was found in the grass. The accused no. 2 then lifted the wooden log and handed it over to the police, which was around two and half feet in length and there were some red colour stains and a hair attached to it. The wooden log weighed around one and half kgs. The said wooden log was put in a polythene bag and was packed and sealed. All of them again sat in the jeep and after a distance of about 50 metres, the accused no. 2 asked them to stop the jeep where there were shrubs. The accused no. 2 could not find the SIM card there. They proceeded further to the end of the road, where the accused no. 2 could locate a part of the SIM card from the bushes. The SIM card was of Airtel company, having number 64 on one side and Airtel written on the other side. Accordingly, panchanama was prepared which is at Exhibit 61. The Investigating Officer also managed to click the photographs of the spot and M.O. No. 16, which is the wooden log. 23. The contention that the recovery being from a public place is suspect, cannot be accepted. The discovery of an incriminating article, from a public place is looked upon with suspicion, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, on account of the fact that the place being accessible to one and all, it cannot be said with certainty that it is the accused, at whose instance the recovery is said to be made, has concealed it there and secondly, the recovery from the public place may indicate that the Investigating Officer had already stumbled upon the articles, which are now being tried to be passed off as a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We find that none of these two circumstances can be borne out of record in the present case. There is neither a rule of law nor one of practice to per se, discard evidence of discovery of an incriminating article from a public place. We find that none of these two circumstances can be borne out of record in the present case. There is neither a rule of law nor one of practice to per se, discard evidence of discovery of an incriminating article from a public place. The only thing that the Court is required to do is to closely scrutinize the evidence and to decide whether, the evidence is otherwise acceptable. The question whether, such discovery is established or not, would be one of facts, peculiar to a case. The “fact” disclosed within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is not synonymous with the object discovered. The incriminating aspect is about the exclusive knowledge of the accused, about the concealment of the article at a particular place. It has clearly come on record in the evidence of Shri Shekhar Naik (PW-15) that there was sizeable amount of grass grown near the spot, where the weapon was found. The exclusive knowledge of the accused no. 2 about the presence of the wooden log as well as the SIM card is clearly established on record. 24. Shri Shekhar Naik (PW-15) has been extensively cross examined on behalf of the appellants. Shri Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants criticised the evidence of this witness on the ground that the witness claims to be selling samosas on the highway at Cortalim on a mobile cart. This witness states that Verna Police Station is around 6 kms. from his house and also admitted that there are many houses between Verna Police Station and his house. The witness has also stated that the policeman who had come to call him came on foot. The submission is that the policeman could not have travelled from the Police Station to his house on foot. With respect, we are unable to accept the contention. The witness has nowhere admitted that the policeman, who came to call him, came on foot right from the Police Station to his house. Even a person coming on a vehicle is ultimately required to park the same and then go on foot. Merely because this witness has stated that the policeman came on foot, it cannot be said that the concerned policeman came right from the Police Station to the house of PW-15 on foot. An attempt was also made to submit that there is no mobile cart/gadha at Cortalim junction. Merely because this witness has stated that the policeman came on foot, it cannot be said that the concerned policeman came right from the Police Station to the house of PW-15 on foot. An attempt was also made to submit that there is no mobile cart/gadha at Cortalim junction. We are afraid that we cannot invoke personal knowledge of the Counsel or anybody else and we have to confine to the evidence on record. We are of the considered view that the Investigating Officer has made an attempt to get an independent witness, who was neither related to the accused no. 1 nor a resident of the same locality. We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-15 and for the matter of that the evidence of PW-30, who is the Investigating Officer and we find that the evidence of discovery is sufficiently established in this case. 25. Before parting with this circumstance, we may state that the initial investigation in this case was carried out by P.S.I. Abhishek Gomes, who met with an unfortunate accidental death and could not be examined. The subsequent part of the investigation, which was carried out by Shri Rajan Nigalye (PW- 30), has been examined by the prosecution. (IV) Finding of a hair strand of the deceased and human blood on the said weapon (M.O. No. 16):- 26. Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17), who is a Junior Scientific Officer, Biology, attached to CFSL, Hyderabad stated that on 16.08.2011, she had received a sealed parcel in Crime No. 90/2011 of Verna Police Station, which includes parcel no. 10, containing the wooden log (Exhibit-10) and hair strands (Exhibit-10A). She states in her examination as under:- i. Blood was detected in Exhibits-10 and 10A and in some other exhibits. ii. Human blood was detected in Exhibits-10 and 10A and some other exhibits. iii. Blood group A was detected in Exhibit-10 and some other exhibits. iv. Group test was inconclusive for Exhibit-10A and some other exhibits. 27. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17) is an expert and independent witness. The learned Counsel for the appellants, criticized the evidence of this witness, on the ground that it was unlikely that blood or the hair strand could be found on the wooden log, as it was raining. 27. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17) is an expert and independent witness. The learned Counsel for the appellants, criticized the evidence of this witness, on the ground that it was unlikely that blood or the hair strand could be found on the wooden log, as it was raining. In this regard, it is significant to note that the Investigating Officer in categorical terms has stated that although, on the day on which the recovery panchanama of the wooden log was drawn, it had rained, but at the time of the actual recovery, there were no rains. We are unable to discard the evidence as to the discovery and that of the expert witness Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17), on the ground that on account of rains, the wooden log was unlikely to have blood stains or the hair strand. 28. Secondly, it was contended that there is delay in examination of the samples. It has come in the evidence of Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17) that all the exhibits sent in this case were not examined on a single day and they were examined from 20.01.2013 to 14.03.2013. She has also given the details of the method employed for the analysis, namely, the “absorption elution” method to detect the blood group. It is true that the recovery of the wooden log was on 17.07.2011 and the actual examination was carried out somewhere from 20.01.2013 to 14.03.2013. However, nothing has been brought on record in the cross examination of PW-17 in order to establish that the delay can affect the result of the analysis. There is also no reason as to why an independent witness would tend to favour the prosecution or depose against the accused. It is true that although, human blood of blood group 'A' is found on the wooden log (Exhibit-10), the blood grouping of the human blood on the hair strand could not be made, evidently, because of inadequacy of the sample, which can be recovered from the hair strand. It is further the evidence of Smt. Maya Nair (PW-17) that the hair strand (Exhibit-10A) was a human scalp hair, in origin and it's morphological characters were consistent with that of Exhibit-S. Incidentally, Exhibit-S is scalp hair sample of the deceased. We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-17 and we find her evidence to be acceptable and one inspiring confidence. We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-17 and we find her evidence to be acceptable and one inspiring confidence. Thus, the prosecution has established that there were blood stains of group 'A' (which is also the blood group of the deceased) on the wooden log (Exhibit-10). There were also blood stains on the hair strand (Exhibit-10A), however, the blood group of the same, could not be determined. What is significant is that the prosecution has established that the hair strand was from a human scalp and the morphological characters were consistent with that of the scalp hair sample of the deceased (Exhibit-S). This circumstance stands firmly established. (V) Injuries found on the accused, which are unexplained:- 29. Dr. Girish Kamat (PW-27), examined accused no. 2 on 16.07.2011 i.e. on the same day of the incident and found the following injuries on the person of accused no. 2: Abrasion of 2 mm in diameter with reddish brown soft scab formation present over the outer aspect of the left ankle joint caused by blunt force impact, simple in nature and within three days of duration. He has categorically stated that the injuries found on the accused no. 2, could be sustained in an attempt of assaulting someone with a wooden log. The said circumstance was specifically put to the accused no. 2 in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which he failed to explain. The accused no. 2, in fact, denied that there was any injury on his body. There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Girish Kamat (PW-27), who again is an expert and an independent witness. Thus, in our considered view, the circumstance about the existence of injury on the person of the accused no. 2, when examined shortly after the incident and which the doctor says that such injury is possible when an attempt is made to assault somebody with a wooden log, stands established. The accused no. 2, who would have the exclusive knowledge of the manner in which the injury is sustained, has not explained the same, however has made an attempt to deny the injury itself. The circumstance in our considered view stands established. The accused no. 2, who would have the exclusive knowledge of the manner in which the injury is sustained, has not explained the same, however has made an attempt to deny the injury itself. The circumstance in our considered view stands established. The learned Counsel for the appellants took strong exception to paragraph 79 of the judgment, in which the learned Sessions has observed that there is “strong suspicion” that the injury was caused, when the accused was trying to commit an assault with wooden danda. The contention is that, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof. In our considered view, the said contention cannot be accepted. There cannot be any manner of dispute with the preposition that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of proof. However, the circumstance here is about the existance of the injury on the person of the accused no. 2, shortly after the incident and the accused no. 2 having failed to explain the same. On the basis of the evidence as led, this circumstance clearly stands established. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court is required to consider all the incriminating circumstances together and then draw a reasonable inference of guilt or otherwise. The individual circumstances or link by itself may not be sufficient to point to the guilt of the accused. However, the question is about the cumulative effect of all the circumstances taken together. In that view of the matter, a stray observation and use of the word “strong suspicion”, while dealing with the individual circumstance, as to the existance of the injury on the person of the accused, which is not explained, in our considered view would not be decisive. 30. We will now revert back to the aspect of the accused, having put up a concocted story to create an impression that it was a case of house breaking. Before adverting to this circumstance, we may note that false defence by the accused, if proved, can only strengthen the chain of the circumstances, if already established. In other words, the false defence cannot strictly be an independent circumstance, but, if the other circumstances taken together form a complete chain, then the fact that the accused had taken a false or concocted defence, can lend assurance and credence to the conclusion of guilt. 31. It is the defence of the accused no. In other words, the false defence cannot strictly be an independent circumstance, but, if the other circumstances taken together form a complete chain, then the fact that the accused had taken a false or concocted defence, can lend assurance and credence to the conclusion of guilt. 31. It is the defence of the accused no. 1 that there was house breaking and robbery committed at her house. However, it has come on record in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Shri Rajan Nigalye (PW-30) that there were no signs of house breaking at the scene of offence. The evidence further shows that the grills fixed to the window of kitchen, bedroom were all found intact. He states that the entire flat was checked and all the doors and grills were found to be intact. It can thus clearly be seen that there were no signs of house breaking, which could be found at the spot of occurrence. Although, the accused no. 1 claimed that four robbers with their face covered had trespassed into the flat and had committed theft of her ornaments, she did not state as to what ornaments were stolen. In fact the accused no. 1 showed the place where all the gold ornaments were kept, which were never stolen. The accused no. 1, in fact, led the police and the panchas to 'C' building at Upasnagar and to a flat at the first floor of the building and the ornaments were recovered from the cupboard. Thus, in our considered view, the learned Sessions Judge is right in holding that unless and until, the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 were acting together and in furtherance of their common intention, nobody could have entered into the flat, which during the night time ought to have been latched from inside. In our considered view, this aspect certainly lends credence to the chain of the circumstances, which is already established. We would now propose to briefly deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. 32. With regard to the evidence of the neighbours, it was contended that the statement of the neighbours are recorded belatedly. In our considered view, this aspect certainly lends credence to the chain of the circumstances, which is already established. We would now propose to briefly deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. 32. With regard to the evidence of the neighbours, it was contended that the statement of the neighbours are recorded belatedly. We however find from the record that the statement of Shri Vijayan Alokkan (PW-2), Shri Deepak Gaonkar (PW-3) and Smt. Preeti Alokkan (PW-6) was recorded on 16.07.2011 i.e. on the same day, while the statement of Smt. Diksha Gaonkar (PW-5) was recorded on 18.07.2011 and the statement of Shri Rajbir Singh (PW-4) was recorded on 27.07.2011, which cannot at all be said to be belated. 33. We are not impressed by the argument that there is lapse in the investigation and even assuming that there is one, it should go to the root of the matter, so as to cause prejudice to the appellants. For instance, it was submitted that the Investigating Officer has not obtained the chance finger prints on the wooden log or the door or any article found in the house. Similarly, it was submitted that all the police officers associated with the investigation were not examined. There is neither a rule of law nor one of practice, which requires that all the police officers associated with the investigation has to be examined. Similarly, the absence of sketch, drawn by the Investigating Officer cannot strike at the root of the matter. It is now well settled that a mere lapse in the investigation is of no consequence, unless and until the lapse is one which goes to the root of the matter, causing prejudice to the accused. 34. Insofar as the recovery of certain articles on the person of accused no. 2, when he was on his duty in a boiler suit, is concerned it was submitted that no articles are permitted to be carried in the boiler suit. The evidence of Sidhanath Pandey (PW-7) and Shri Krishna Vishwas (PW-10) is relevant in this regard. Although, these witnesses are the panch witnesses, on the arrest panchanama of the accused no. 2, it has come in the evidence of Sidhanath Pandey (PW-7) that at the time of his arrest, the accused no. The evidence of Sidhanath Pandey (PW-7) and Shri Krishna Vishwas (PW-10) is relevant in this regard. Although, these witnesses are the panch witnesses, on the arrest panchanama of the accused no. 2, it has come in the evidence of Sidhanath Pandey (PW-7) that at the time of his arrest, the accused no. 2 removed from his right hand side pant pocket, a mobile and an ID card from his left hand side pocket and a purse, which was having the photo of accused no. 1 and accused no. 2. The witness has stated that a love letter written by the accused no. 1 to the accused no. 2 was also recovered alongwith some cash. Looking to the nature of the articles recovered, we are not impressed with the contention that these articles were not permitted to be carried with the accused no. 2, while he was on his duty. It is only the articles, which may be dangerous from the security point of view would be prohibited. 35. It was also contended that there is no report as to what happened to the exercise conducted by roping in the dog squad. It is now well settled that the employment of a dog squad/sniffer dog is essentially an investigational aid and not a substantive piece of evidence. It can give a lead to the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter. Thus, the absence of a report as to what happened to the exercise conducted by roping in the dog squad is absolutely inconsequential. (VI) Recovery of the blood stained shirt, admittedly, at the instance of the accused no. 2:- 36. Shri Pradeep Tamankar (PW-16) was one of the panchas, who stated that accused no. 2 showed willingness to show the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident. He states that the accused no. 2 led the panchas and the police to Goa Shipyard via Titan road and they entered Shipyard through the Champa gate, where the jeep was stopped and the accused no. 2 led them to a metallic shed, from where the clothes were recovered consisting of black colour long pant and orange colour full sleeves shirt and keys of the room of the accused no. 2. There was an engraving “Made in China”, which was found on the blue colour key chain. The accused no. 2 led them to a metallic shed, from where the clothes were recovered consisting of black colour long pant and orange colour full sleeves shirt and keys of the room of the accused no. 2. There was an engraving “Made in China”, which was found on the blue colour key chain. The accused no. 2 then led the police and the panchas towards Maruti temple junction and then towards Ganpati temple. The accused no. 2 then led them to a lane, where there was a chawl of four rooms. He then took the police and the panchas to the last room and handed over the keys to PW-16, who opened the door. It is from this room that all the clothes i.e. a long pant, full sleeves shirt and an underwear, were recovered, which were accordingly packed and sealed and which are M.O. No. 20 (Exhibit-15), M.O. No. 21 (Exhibits-16A and 16B) and M.O. No. 22. The evidence of Smt. Maya Naik (PW-17) states that blood was detected on Exhibits-16A and 16B. 37. The learned Counsel for the appellants made an alternate submission. It was submitted that this is a case of a single blow and as such, the conviction may be modified from one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304(II) of IPC. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar (supra). It is difficult to accept the contention as raised on behalf of the appellants. There are several cases, both of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of various High Courts, where in view of the fact that the accused had dealt with a single blow, the conviction was modified to one under Section 304(II) of IPC. However, all these cases fall within the ambit of exception 1 or exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. This would not apply to a case where a person, who is asleep, is assaulted by a wooden log on a vital part. 38. In the case of Ciani Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that in view of the medical evidence and the evidence on record that the appellant-accused can only be clothed with knowledge that the injury caused by him with a hammer on the head of the deceased, was likely to cause death. The case clearly turned on its own facts. 39. The case clearly turned on its own facts. 39. Even in the case of Ramanlal & Another (supra), on facts, it was found that the assault by lathi on the head of the deceased was without any premeditation and was on sudden fight and quarrel and the injuries on the deceased were inflicted in the heat of passion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also found that the appellant did not take any undue advantage or having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 40. The decision in the case of Sunil (supra) also turned on its own facts, where the circumstances established were found to be insufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 41. The case of Gurudas Gaonkar (supra) is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the accused had committed murder of his wife, as she was having illicit relationship with PW-15. A perusal of para 46 of the judgment in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar (supra) clearly brings out that the deceased had accompanied PW-15 on the day of incident, despite the matter being settled and thus, this Court came to the conclusion that this must have infuriated the accused and in a heat of passion, the accused had gone to the place of incident, picked up a wooden danda and had given a blow. This Court also came to the conclusion that the assault was not premeditated and unfortunately, the blow turned out to be fatal. Thus, the decision in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar (supra) cannot come to the aid of the appellants. 42. Lastly, the decision in the case of Sandeep (supra) also turned on its own facts. As noticed earlier, the principles governing a case based on circumstantial evidence are well settled. However, whether the individual circumstances and the chain is established or not, will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 43. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and we do not find that it suffers from any infirmity, so as to require interference. The appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.