ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FT), Banswara in Sessions Case No. 58/2009 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly, facts in the matter are that a complaint was filed by Smt. Pari to the Circle Inspector, Police Station-Khamera District Banswara on 08.08.2009 stating therein that her son Shanker S/o Gang Ji was married to one Ujala @ Unja Daughter of Sohan Dholi, resident of Hero for the last 4-5 years. From the wedlock, their son namely Vakil was born. Presently, age of Vakil is three years. For past 5-6 months, the relationship between Shanker and his wife Ujala @ Uunja were not cordial and therefore, Ujala @ Unja had gone to her parents house and staying there. Today, i.e. on 08.08.2009 at around 07:00 am while the complainant and her husband along with her brother-in-law Kaliya were at home, the accused Shanker took away his son Vakil for bathing and morning routine to the nearby river through trail. After some time, when her son Shanker and Vakil did not return, she went to the river to search both Shanker and Vakil and when she could not find both of them on the river then while looking out for both, she saw beheaded body of Vakil in the bushes nearby. After this when she cried, brother-in-law Kaliya, father-in-law Nanka reached the spot along with other persons of the village. Thereafter, she took out the dead body of Vakil from the bushes and kept the same on the bank of the river. She further stated that her son Shanker killed his son Vakil by beheading. Hence, she reports. 3. On this complaint, the police registered an FIR under section 302 IPC and investigated the matter. The accused-appellant was arrested on the same day. After investigation, the police filed challan under section 302 IPC against the accused-petitioner. 4. The learned trial court framed the charge against accused Shanker for the offence under section 302 IPC for committing murder of his son namely Vakil. 5. The accused denied the charge and sought for trial in the matter. The accused-appellant was arrested on the same day. After investigation, the police filed challan under section 302 IPC against the accused-petitioner. 4. The learned trial court framed the charge against accused Shanker for the offence under section 302 IPC for committing murder of his son namely Vakil. 5. The accused denied the charge and sought for trial in the matter. During the trial, 18 prosecution witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited. No witness was produced in defence. 6. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.PC and was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which the accused denied and submitted that he is being falsely implicated. 7. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides, taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses and scrutinizing the documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide its judgment dated 22.02.2011. 8. In order to appreciate the facts in detail, the statements recorded during the trial were examined by us along with other documents produced before the trial court. 9. PW4 Smt. Pari who is mother of the accused Shanker very categorically stated in her statement that her son was married to Unja for last 4-5 years and from their wedlock, a son was born. When Vakil was 2 or 2 of age, Ujala @ Unja went to her parental house along with her son Vakil. Thereafter, accused Shanker brought back his son Vakil and in the morning, the accused Shanker took away his son for morning routine and for bathing on the river and thereafter, he killed Vakil. While the accused Shanker was going along with his son at the river, she tried to stop Shanker but he did stop and when Shanker did return with Vakil, after some time, she went in search of them at the river but found dead body of Vakil near the Kanjadi Tree in the bushes. The head of Vakil was detached from the body. Frightened with the site, she cried then Sarpanch Gautam Lal came on the spot. She is aware why her son Shanker killed his son Vakil. She affixed her thumb impression on the documents prepared by the police at the site. 10. PW3 Ujala @ Unja is wife of accused Shanker. She stated that after two years of marriage, Vakil was born. She is aware why her son Shanker killed his son Vakil. She affixed her thumb impression on the documents prepared by the police at the site. 10. PW3 Ujala @ Unja is wife of accused Shanker. She stated that after two years of marriage, Vakil was born. The accused Shanker used to beat her and cause nuisance. It was also stated that the accused used to force her to earn money for him by doing job of labour. At the time of the incident, Vakil was about three years old. She further stated that accused turned her out of the matrimonial home, therefore, she was staying at her parental house. The accused along with his father came to her parental house and forcibly took away Vakil. Shanker also gave beating to her on that day. After about eight days, the police informed her that her son has been killed. When she went to the spot along with her father, she saw her son lying dead on the bank of the river beheaded, she fainted on the spot. She also submitted that she is aware why her son was killed but the accused used to tell her that he will kill her and her son. The accused always used to force her to earn money for him after doing the job of labour. 11. The witness Toliya (PW7) stated in his statement that at around 8:00 am when he went for bath on the Siyali River, the accused Shanker was sitting there with a blood stained handkerchief wrapped around. While he was taking bath, Kanti Maniya also came on the spot and thereafter, accused Shanker was also having bath in the river. Later, they came to know that Shanker has killed his son Vakil by beheading. 12. The witness PW8 Partu deposed in his statement that he saw accused Shanker at around 7:00 am along with his son who was going towards the river. 13. In the statement of Kanti (PW9), it is categorically stated by him that at around 8:00 am, while he was going for bath at Siyali River, he saw Shanker sitting on the bridge of Siyali River. 14. Similarly, the witness Ramesh Chandra (PW10) stated in his statement that his house is located about 500 meters away from the place of the incident which is situated on the bank of Siyali River. 14. Similarly, the witness Ramesh Chandra (PW10) stated in his statement that his house is located about 500 meters away from the place of the incident which is situated on the bank of Siyali River. While he was going towards Banswara from Amarthun Road, at around 7:30 am in the morning, he saw Shanker along with his three years old son going towards the river. Later, he came to know that Shanker has killed his son. 15. As per evidence, father of accused Shanker (PW11 Gang Ji) states that Shanker was married to Ujala @ Unja and son Vakil was born from the wedlock. He stated that 5-6 months earlier than the date of the incident, the relationship between Shanker and Ujala got strained due to dispute/quarrel and because of this Ujala went to her parental house. 10-12 days earlier from the date of the incident, Vakil was brought by the accused Shanker to Amarthun and was staying with them. Shanker took away his son for bath in the morning at the river. He was present on the spot and he was at the Mata Ji where he was informed by his daughter that Shanker has killed his son Vakil. He further stated that because of the quarrel between husband and wife, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house. Being annoyed with the same, Shanker has killed his son Vakil. 16. PW12 Chatra has attested recovery memo of dead body (Exp.5), memo of handing over the dead body for the last rites (Exp.11), arrest memo of Shanker (Exp.12) & recovery of Towel vide (Exp.13). 17. PW13 Bithla is the attesting witness of the memo of arrest (Exp.12) and recovery of Towel (Exp.13). 18. PW14 Devi Lal has proved the fact that photographs of the dead body (Exp.14 to Exp.18) were taken by him. 19. PW1 Sohan submits that he knows Shanker and he has attested the recovery of Bushirt and Knife (Exp.1) and he has also attested site plan prepared by the Police (Exp.2). 20. PW2 Shanker S/o Shri Sohan submits that he knows Shanker and he has attested the recovery memo of Exp.1 for the recovery of knife and Bushirt. He has also attested the site plan prepared by the police. 21. PW5 stated that he has attested the memo of dead body (Exp.5). 22. 20. PW2 Shanker S/o Shri Sohan submits that he knows Shanker and he has attested the recovery memo of Exp.1 for the recovery of knife and Bushirt. He has also attested the site plan prepared by the police. 21. PW5 stated that he has attested the memo of dead body (Exp.5). 22. PW6 Dalji stated that he is the attesting witness of Exp.4 and memo of dead body (Exp.5). He has also attested Exp.6 prepared for the blood stained shirt, blood stained soil and normal. 23. PW15 Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Jain was working as a Medical Officer of Ghatol who conducted the postmortem of dead body of Vakil and stated that the length of the body was 90 cm. Head was detached from the body. 20 milk teeth were there. Hair on the head were blood stained. The eyes were open and dilated. Lacerated wounds on the neck having been caused by a sharp edged weapon were present. In his opinion, the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to head having been detached from the body. 24. PW16 Nanu Lal who was working as head constable at the Police Line, Banswara and he was in charge of Malkhana. He received four packets on 09.08.2009 in the seal cover for placing the same in the Malkhana and on 09.08.2009, one more packet in sealed cover was handed over to him. Thereafter, the same were handed over to Kirtan Singh for sending the same to FSL, Udaipur. He further stated that the documents for taking and handing over the documents for FSL were received by him. 25. PW17 Kirtan Singh who was working as Constable at Police Station-Khamera who carried five sealed samples to FSL, Udaipur and submitted receipts thereof. 26. PW18 Veera Ram is the Station House Office, Nimbahera submitted that on 08.08.2009 while he was working as Station House Officer, Khamera, a written report was submitted by Smt. Pari. The same was sent to the Police Station and Nathu Lal, Sub Inspector has registered the same. He has investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, he prepared Naksha Mauka and has prepared memo of recovery, site plan etc in accordance with law in the presence of the attesting witnesses and has sent samples for FSL in the sealed cover and has received receipts of handing over and taking over of the samples. 27. He has investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, he prepared Naksha Mauka and has prepared memo of recovery, site plan etc in accordance with law in the presence of the attesting witnesses and has sent samples for FSL in the sealed cover and has received receipts of handing over and taking over of the samples. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that present is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the incident and thus, the prosecution witnesses have miserably failed to prove the offence alleged against the appellant. He further submits that recovery of the dead body is from an open place and connecting the same with the accused is highly improbable. There is no reason for the accused Shanker to kill his son. There are material contradictions in the statements recorded by the prosecution. He further submits that the chain of circumstances being complete and there is no direct evidence in the matter only circumstantial evidence cannot form the basis of conviction in the present case. The prosecution has miserably failed to collect/connect the pieces of evidence in such a fashion that chain of circumstances is complete which indicates and points out only one thing that the accused Shanker is the only person who has actually killed his son and there is no other possibility of taking view other than this. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted in the present case. 28. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while defending the judgment passed by the learned trial court submitted that the charge against the accused-appellant has been proved by the evidence produced on record. There is no deviation in the statements recorded during the course of trial. Much less, there is no material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witness PW4 who is the lodger of the FIR is also mother of the accused who has in no uncertain terms submitted that her son Shanker has actually killed his son Vakil. She further stated that despite she resisted Shanker to take away his son for morning routine and bath at the river, he did listen to her and took him away and killed his son by beheading him. She further stated that despite she resisted Shanker to take away his son for morning routine and bath at the river, he did listen to her and took him away and killed his son by beheading him. It has also come on record that because of strained relationship between Shanker and his wife Ujala @ Unja, she was staying at her parental house and Shanker along with his father Gang Ji (PW11) forcibly brought Vakil at their house after giving beating to Ujala@ Unja. PW11 Gang Ji who is father of the accused Shanker has also submitted that because of strained relationship of Shanker with his wife, Shanker has killed his son Vakil by beheading. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that PW3 Ujala @ Unja has submitted in her statement that there was strained relationship between her and accused Shanker who was giving beating and was forcing her to earn money and give him by doing the job of labour. These witnesses are since relative of accused Shanker and if they are deposing against accused Shanker without any deviation or contradiction then there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Besides this, the accused was arrested on the same day. The recovery at the instance of Shanker and FSL report goes to show that charge under section 302 IPC has rightly been held proved against the accused-appellant. He further submits that although it is a case of circumstantial evidence but chain of events, evidence of last seen in the company, motive and recovery of blood stained articles conclusively shows that the appellant was the only person who has committed the offence alleged against him and the same has been found proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Hence, the judgment of the learned trial court should be upheld. 29. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 30. In view of detailed scrutiny made by us of the material available on record and depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it is a case of circumstantial evidence since there is no eye witness in the present case. The evidence which led to conviction of the accused is required to be considered on the touch stone of the circumstances which led to the inescapable conclusion that only the present accused Shanker is guilty of committing offence under section 302 IPC and none else. The evidence which led to conviction of the accused is required to be considered on the touch stone of the circumstances which led to the inescapable conclusion that only the present accused Shanker is guilty of committing offence under section 302 IPC and none else. It is gainfully noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu v. State of Haryana reported at AIR 2017 AIR SCC 3441 has held that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, certain principles are to be followed which are as under :- "1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable or explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the deceased but should be inconsistent with this innocence". 31. Keeping in mind the above said principles, we have scrutinized the evidence. In the present case PW4 Smt. Pari who is mother of the accused and lodger of the FIR and PW10 Ramesh Chandra have deposed in their statements that at around 7:30 to 8:00 in the morning, they had seen the accused Shanker along with his son going towards the river. Therefore, these are the witnesses of the last seen evidence. Further, PW4 who is the mother of the accused has submitted that even on resisting and refusing Shanker to take his son to the river for morning routine and bath, he took away his son Vakil to the river and when after some time, both of them did return, she went to the river in search of them and found dead body of Vakil in the bushes. Thereafter, she very categorically made statement that the present accused has killed his son Vakil. Therefore, deceased Vakil was last seen with his father accused Shanker before he was found dead in the bushes. Thereafter, she very categorically made statement that the present accused has killed his son Vakil. Therefore, deceased Vakil was last seen with his father accused Shanker before he was found dead in the bushes. The best person to explain the situation was Shanker himself as the child was in his custody and therefore, best explanation which could have come of the incident would have been from accused Shanker himself but nothing has been said by accused Shanker. More particularly, in view of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was accused Shanker who would have thrown light on what had actually happened, who had caused death of his son Vakil. In absence of any explanation, the evidence which has come on record is required to be believed in the chain of events. There is no reason to disbelieve the witness PW4 Smt. Pari who is mother of accused and in normal circumstances, she would have implicated her son falsely. More particularly, there is even an iota of evidence which shows or suggests that there was any enmity between Smt. Pari and his son Shanker. 32. PW7 Toliya and PW9 Kanti in their statements have submitted that when they went for bath at the river, they saw accused Shanker sitting on the bank of Siyali River with handkerchief which was blood stained and was taking bath in the river. Therefore, presence of accused Shanker on the Siyali river is also proved beyond doubt. 33. In the statement of Ujala @ Unja, she has submitted that accused Shanker used to give beating to her and force her to earn money for him by doing the job of labour. Since relationship between accused Shanker and Ujala @ Unja were strained, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parents and while she was staying at her parental house, the custody of deceased Vakil was forcibly taken away by the accused and because of his wife living in the parental home, accused Shanker killed his son in the state of anger and anguish. The motive of killing his son Vakil also gets fortified and established in view of the fact that Shanker was unhappy on account of his wife staying at parental house on account of strained relationship between them. The motive of killing his son Vakil also gets fortified and established in view of the fact that Shanker was unhappy on account of his wife staying at parental house on account of strained relationship between them. It is also gets strengthened in view of the statement made by PW11 Gang Ji who is father of accused that Vakil has been killed by Shanker on account of his wife having left the matrimonial home putting Shanker in the state of anguish. 34. The FIR was lodged immediately after recovery of dead body and arrest of accused Shanker was made on the same day besides recovery of blood stained Kurta, Shirt, Towel and Knife on the information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by Shanker very well corroborates commission of offence under section 302 IPC by the accused-appellant Shanker. The recovery memo and other fards were prepared in the presence of independent witnesses which complete the chain and signifies recovery of the weapon used in the commission of crime i.e. knife. The samples were taken in the sealed cover to the FSL as has been deposed in the statement of PW16 Nanu Lal, PW17 Kirtan Singh and PW18 Veera Ram. The FSL report which is Exp.26 confirms blood stains on the exhibited articles to be of the human origin having stain of "B" group blood. The matching of the blood group on the towel and knife with the Kurta worn by deceased Vakil and sample of soil connect the chain of events pointing towards undoubted involvement of the accused-appellant in the crime in question. PW15 Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Jain who had conducted postmortem has also submitted that the cause of death of deceased Vakil is excessive bleeding and shock due to separation of his head from the body by a sharp edged weapon. 35. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the circumstances, unflinching and corroborating evidence which has come on record, last seen evidence, no explanation under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act by the accused, recovery of blood stained articles, FSL report and cause of death leads to only conclusion that the accused Shanker has killed his son Vakil and therefore, has committed offence under section 302 IPC. 36. 36. Therefore, in our opinion the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, corroborated by the statements of prosecution witnesses and motive of killing his son and the factum of recovery unerringly goes to show that the offence alleged against accused Shanker has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we are unable to take a different view than the view taken by the trial court and sentenced the appellant under section 302 IPC. 37. In view of whatever is stated above, the conviction and sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Banswara to the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 22.02.2011 is upheld. In result, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected.