JUDGMENT : C.V. BHADANG, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal, is to the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. For the offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and fine. Lastly, for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case, shorn of minor details, may be stated thus: That, now deceased, Rukmini Kanse had lent Rs.10,000/- to the appellant by way of temporary accommodation. It is stated that on 10.06.2015, at about 10:15 hours, the appellant trespassed into the house of the deceased and intentionally caused death of Rukmini Kanse, by strangulating her and slitting her neck and also committed robbery. On the basis of a complaint lodged by Deepali Kanse (PW-1), an offence came to be registered with the Mormugao P.S. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, recorded the spot panchanama of scene of occurrence, an inquest panchanama of the dead body was drawn, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and the statement of the witnesses came to be recorded. The appellant, who is the neighbour of the deceased was arrested on 14.06.2015. It is the material prosecution case that while in custody, the appellant gave separate confessional statements on 15.06.2015 (Exhibit No. 29), 16.06.2015 (Exhibit No. 31) and 18.06.2015 (Exhibit No.38), thereby offering to discover certain articles, including the weapons and the blood stained clothes of the appellant, which were accordingly recovered. 3. The prosecution case mainly rests on these three recovery panchanamas (Exhibits 29, 31 and 38), under which, the appellant has discovered certain incriminating articles, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This includes a dual SIM mobile hand set of “Lava” make, which according to the appellant was given to her by the deceased and which the prosecution claims that it was used by the appellant with a SIM card standing in the name of the husband of the appellant. 4. This includes a dual SIM mobile hand set of “Lava” make, which according to the appellant was given to her by the deceased and which the prosecution claims that it was used by the appellant with a SIM card standing in the name of the husband of the appellant. 4. It appears that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer also obtained finger prints on certain articles found in the house of the deceased, however, there is no report of the finger print expert on record to show the complicity of the appellant in the crime. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was eventually committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge (Exhibit-9) against the appellant, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 397 of IPC, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant, as elicited from the cross examination and the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short), is of total denial and false implication. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced the record of the investigation. The appellant neither entered into the witness box nor examined any defence witnesses. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found that the deceased suffered homicidal death at her house at Bogda, Mormugao on 10.06.2015 in the morning hours at 10:15 and it is the appellant, who intentionally caused her death, after trespassing in the house of the deceased and also committed robbery of gold ornaments and some cash. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated 04.01.2017, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 397 of IPC and sentenced her as set out above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court. 7. We have heard Shri Prabhudessai, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 8. It is submitted by Shri Prabhudessai, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint lodged by Deepali Kanse (PW-1) is against unknown persons. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 8. It is submitted by Shri Prabhudessai, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint lodged by Deepali Kanse (PW-1) is against unknown persons. It is submitted that the complaint did not name the appellant as having any complicity in the offence. The learned Counsel has pointed out the cross examination of Kapil Nayak (PW-10), in order to submit that till 14.06.2015, when the appellant came to be arrested, there were no statements of any witness recorded by the Investigating Officer, showing the involvement of the appellant. It is thus submitted that the appellant came to be arrested merely on suspicion, without there being any material to show her complicity. The Investigating Officer has then went upon collecting evidence in the nature of certain discovery panchanamas, to show the complicity of the appellant in the offence. The learned Counsel has then referred to the scene of offence panchanama (Exhibit-20), which records that there was one mobile hand set found on the table of the house of the deceased, which was taken into custody for investigation. He also pointed out that the said mobile was not shown to be attached under the panchanama. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has then taken us through the three recovery panchanamas (Exhibits 29, 31 and 38), in order to submit that they do not inspire confidence and are not worthy of credence. It is submitted that it is unlikely that the appellant will make piecemeal disclosure and give successive confessional statements offering to produce the articles, which are of incriminating nature. It is submitted that there was a “Nada”/thread (Exhibit-8) shown to be recovered under the panchanama dated 15.06.2015 (Exhibit-29), which was neither referred to the Medical Officer nor sent for forensic examination, in order to ascertain whether, the ligature marks on the dead body can be caused by the said “Nada”/thread. He submits that the Medical Officer, Dr. Avinash Pujari (PW-7), who has conducted the post-mortem, had found a thread in the hair strands of the deceased (Exhibit-K), which was forwarded to the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that no attempt has been made to ascertain whether, the said thread (Exhibit-K) matches with the “Nada”/thread recovered under the panchanama dated 15.06.2015 (Exhibit-29). 10. Avinash Pujari (PW-7), who has conducted the post-mortem, had found a thread in the hair strands of the deceased (Exhibit-K), which was forwarded to the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that no attempt has been made to ascertain whether, the said thread (Exhibit-K) matches with the “Nada”/thread recovered under the panchanama dated 15.06.2015 (Exhibit-29). 10. The learned Counsel has then referred to the report of the Chemical Analyser, in order to submit that although, human blood was detected on the knife and the scissors (M.O. Nos. 14 & 15 respectively), the examination for determination of the blood group was inconclusive. The learned Counsel has then referred to the evidence of Macario Velho (PW-3), who is the husband of the appellant, who in his cross examination has admitted that he had found some cash in the pocket of the plastic cover of the fridge, which this witness had handed to Mormugao P.S. Macario Velho (PW-3) then claims that one policeman had come to his house, asking him to keep it back where it was found. Macario Velho (PW-3) claims that the said policeman had asked to keep the said cash in the pocket of the fridge cover. It is thus submitted that there was a clear intention of planting, which has been stated by Macario Velho (PW-3). The learned Counsel was at pains to point out that Macario Velho (PW-3) was not declared as hostile and thus, his evidence can be relied upon. 11. The learned Counsel has then referred to the evidence of Investigating Officer, in order to submit that the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has “stressed” for recovery of the various articles from the appellant, which would show that it was not a voluntary disclosure, referable to Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned Counsel submitted that there were no injuries found on the person of the appellant, which would negate any possibility of there being any resistance or a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. He submits that motive also cannot be said to be established, in this case and thus, the conviction of the appellant merely on the basis of the three recovery panchanamas, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1021 . 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1021 . 12. On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents that the deceased had advanced certain amounts to the appellant and on account of a dispute arising out of the said transaction, the appellant trespassed into the house of the deceased in the morning hours, when the deceased was alone at the house. It is submitted that there is clear evidence to show that the appellant had intentionally caused the death of the deceased by strangulating her and thereafter, assaulting her with knife and scissors and then decamped with the cash and the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased. It is submitted that the complexity of the appellant is clearly established on the basis of the three recovery panchanamas. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Sanil Kanse (PW-4), who is the son of the deceased, has produced the receipts of the gold ornaments, as such, the recovery of the gold ornaments from the house of the deceased (as found buried in the courtyard), is clearly an incriminating material, showing the complicity of the appellant in the offence. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor has next submitted that the appellant has admitted that the deceased had given her a mobile phone, which was being used by the appellant and thus, the appellant and the deceased were known to each other. It is submitted that even so, the appellant while answering question no. 62, in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-70) has denied that she was knowing the deceased. It is submitted that this is a clear case, where the appellant has raised a false defence, which strengthens the case of the prosecution, which is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the pancha witnesses on the recovery, have supported the prosecution and there is no reason as to why the three recovery panchanamas (Exhibits 29, 31 and 38), should be disbelieved. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge after having meticulously gone through the evidence and the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that it was the appellant, who trespassed into the house of the deceased, intentionally caused the death of the deceased and then committed robbery. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge after having meticulously gone through the evidence and the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that it was the appellant, who trespassed into the house of the deceased, intentionally caused the death of the deceased and then committed robbery. He therefore submits that the appeal be dismissed. 14. We have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. The fact that Rukmini Kanse suffered a homicidal death was not disputed on behalf of the appellant. Nonetheless, considering the fact that this is a case involving an offence under Section 302 of IPC, it would be necessary to first look into the evidence to see the nature of the injuries, which has caused the death of Rukmini Kanse. Dr. Avinash Pujari (PW-7) has conducted the autopsy on the dead body, who has found the following external injuries: “External Injury No. 1) Incised wound with clear, clear margins with blood clot within, both angles acute, red and fresh, upwards backwards to left of size 12.0 x 3.0 cms (at maximum in middle) on neck front lower aspect 8.0 cms belobchin, 4.0 cms above S.S. Notch (5.0 cms on right of midline & 7.0 cms left of midline) vessels with soft tissues below thyroid cartilage cut upto body of 5th cervical spine, anteriorly, extensive blood infiltration in cut margin soft tissues. External injury No. 2) 4 linear abrasions red and fresh 7.0 to 14.0 cms in length 1.0 to 1.5 cms apart almost horizontal from midline to left below collar bone. External injury No. 3) Ligature mark in the form of superficial grooved contused abrasion, horizontal at the root of neck, 10.0 cms below right lobule & 11.0 below left lobule, on front below Ext. Inj. No. 1, encircling the neck 39.0 x 0.5 to 0.8 cm (absent for about 5.0 cms on back on left of midline) with the ligature material is worn out coir loosely found in scalp hair no knot soiled with blood completely. On further dissection there was moderate extravasations of blood in soft tissues underneath including s/c tissues, muscles of sides and front. Fresh, consequent to surface impact of said ligature material. On further dissection there was moderate extravasations of blood in soft tissues underneath including s/c tissues, muscles of sides and front. Fresh, consequent to surface impact of said ligature material. External Injury No. 4) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within red and fresh of size 4.0 x 0.5 cms x bone deep on forehead in midline, oblique upto inner canthus of left eye. External Injury No. 5) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh of size 5.0 x 0.5 cm x bone deep 0.5 cm above left eyebrow parallel upto outer end starting from midline. External Injury No. 6) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh on forehead at hairline 5.0 cms above bridge of nose of size 4.0 x 0.5 to 1.0 cm x Bone deep. External Injury No. 7) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh of size 1.5 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on right lower eyelid below from inner canthus. External Injury No. 8) Abrasion with contusion underneath on nose 1.0 cm below bridge of nose with evidence of fracture of nasal bone. External Injury No. 9) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh of size 6.0 x 0.5 to 1.0 cm (at maximum) on scalp right side fronto-parietal area anterior end in midline backwards to right 8.0 cms from eyebrow 9.0 cms above right ear pinna. External Injury No. 10) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh, 3 in number of size 2.0 x 0.5 to 4.0 x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on right side scalp below backwards 2.0 cms apart. External Injury No. 11) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh, 6.0 cms above right ear pinna in midline front to back 15.0 cms from bridge of nose of size 4.0 x 0.5 cm x scalp deep. External Injury No. 12) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh on back of scalp in midline below of size 7.0 x 0.5 to 1.0 cm x scalp deep 20.0 cms from bridge of nose, 11.5 cms above right ear pinna. External Injury No. 12) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh on back of scalp in midline below of size 7.0 x 0.5 to 1.0 cm x scalp deep 20.0 cms from bridge of nose, 11.5 cms above right ear pinna. External Injury No. 13) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh, 3 in number on left scalp of size 4.0 x 0.5 to 6.0 x 0.5 cm x scalp deep 5.0 cms above left ear pinna 1.0 cm apart. External Injury No. 14) Incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh, 2 in number on left side scalp behind ear pinna 3.0 cm of size 3.0 x 0.5 cm and 2.5 x 0.5 cm 1.0 cm apart. External Injury No. 15) Linear abrasion red, fresh 2.5 x 0.2 cm on right hand dorsum at 3rd & 4th knuckle. External Injury No. 16) Linear incised wound with clean, clear margins with blood clot within, red and fresh on left hand index and middle finger on dorsal aspect of middle phalynx 1.0 x 0.5 cm in same direction horizontal to longitudinal axis.” 15. In the opinion of Dr. Avinash Pujari (PW-7), the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to incised wound on neck and asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, with multiple incised wounds on the face and the scalp. Looking to the nature of injuries and the cause of death, it is clearly established that Rukmini Kanse suffered a homicidal death. The question is whether, it is the appellant, who intentionally caused the death of Rukmini Kanse, after having trespassed in her house and whether, it is the appellant who committed the robbery at the house of the deceased. 16. The prosecution evidence shows that the deceased was residing along with her son Sanil Kanse (PW-4) and her niece, Deepali Kanse (PW-1), who is the complainant. Deepali Kanse (PW-1) had come to reside with the deceased about five months prior to the incident in question, on account of ill health of the deceased. The complainant, Deepali Kanse (PW-1), was working at the shop of one Lakhani, which is a general store situated near Destero Church, Bogda and used to be away for work from 7:45 to 13:00 hours and then from 16:00 to 20:30 hours. The complainant, Deepali Kanse (PW-1), was working at the shop of one Lakhani, which is a general store situated near Destero Church, Bogda and used to be away for work from 7:45 to 13:00 hours and then from 16:00 to 20:30 hours. Sanil Kanse (PW-4) was working on a barge and used to leave the house in the morning. According to Deepali Kanse (PW-1), on the date of the incident, she had left the house at about 7:45 hours, when the deceased was alone at the house. When Deepali Kanse (PW-1) returned at about 13:00 hours, she found the door latched from outside and hence, she went to the back side of the house. As she did not find the deceased, she removed the lock and went inside and found that the deceased was lying on the floor between the kitchen and the bedroom and there was blood strewn over the entire floor. She called the neighbours and then lodged a complaint against unknown persons. 17. Sanil Kanse (PW-4), who is the son of the deceased, was away for work from 01.06.2015 and was supposed to return on 16.06.2015. On 10.06.2015 at about 13:30 hours, his neighbour by name Raju Anandache, telephonically informed Sanil Kanse (PW-4) that his mother has been “assaulted with stone” and asked him to come as early as possible. It has come in the evidence of this witness that the deceased used to give hand loans to different persons and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was borrowed by the appellant from the deceased, prior to 10.06.2015, out of which, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was returned by the appellant and Rs.5,000/- was outstanding. It has further come in his evidence that the deceased had demanded the money back from the appellant. He however stated that there was never any dispute or fight between the appellant and the deceased on this issue. It can thus be seen that nothing turns on the evidence of Macario Velho (PW-3) and Sanil Kanse (PW- 4). 18. The learned Sessions Judge in para 165 of the judgment has relied upon in all 14 circumstances as under: 1. The death of Rukmini Kanse took place at her house on 10.6.2015, between 7.45 hours and 13.00 hours, when PW1, Dipali Kanse had gone for her work. 2. 18. The learned Sessions Judge in para 165 of the judgment has relied upon in all 14 circumstances as under: 1. The death of Rukmini Kanse took place at her house on 10.6.2015, between 7.45 hours and 13.00 hours, when PW1, Dipali Kanse had gone for her work. 2. The death of Rukmini Kanse has been proved to have been a homicidal death due to the incised wound on her neck and asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, with multiple incised wounds on the face and scalp. 3. The Lava mobile belonging to PW1 was found missing from the house after the incident on 10.6.2015. 4. This Lava mobile under M.O. no.12 was recovered on 15.6.2015 at the instance of the accused from her house. 5. This Lava mobile was found to have been used by the accused with the Sim Card of her husband on 11.6.2015, soon after the murder on 10.6.2015. 6. The accused has given a false explanation that the Lava mobile under M.O. no.12 was handed over to her for use by the deceased. 7. At the instance of the accused, under the Recovery Panchanama carried out on 15.6.2015, was also recovered the knife under M.O. no.14 and the scissors under M.O.no.15. 8. Human blood was detected on the knife and the scissors. 9. PW7, Dr. Avinash Pujari has deposed that the knife and the scissors could have caused the injuries on the dead body. 10. As the knife and the scissors were having human blood and were recovered on the information given by the accused on 15.6.2015, it is an additional circumstance which connects the accused with the crime. 11. At the instance of the accused was also recovered the gold ornaments under M.O. no.17 to M.O. no.26 on 16.6.2015, from behind her house at Bogda. 12. These gold ornaments have been proved by PW1 and PW4 to have been belonging to the deceased. 13. So also at the instance of the accused, the cash of Rs.9,100/- under M.O. no.28 was attached from her house. 14. The motive of the accused has been proved that as she was owing money to the deceased and on finding her alone in the house, she committed the murder, for committing the theft of the gold ornaments and cash from the house. 19. We however find that essentially, the material circumstances would be as under: (i) Motive. 14. The motive of the accused has been proved that as she was owing money to the deceased and on finding her alone in the house, she committed the murder, for committing the theft of the gold ornaments and cash from the house. 19. We however find that essentially, the material circumstances would be as under: (i) Motive. (ii) Recovery of mobile hand set (M.O. No. 12), at the instance of the appellant. (iii) Recovery of the knife and scissors with blood stains. (iv) Recovery of gold ornaments and (v) The alleged false defence. 20. Let us now consider the various circumstances ad seriatim. Although, the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon motive as a circumstance, which indeed assumes significance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, we however, are of the view that this circumstance is not proved. As noticed earlier, it has come in the evidence of Sanil Kanse (PW-4) that the appellant had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the deceased, out of which, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was outstanding. Sanil Kanse (PW-4) in categorical terms stated that there was never any fight between the appellant and the deceased on this issue. It is thus, difficult to accept that this would be sufficient to attribute motive to the appellant, to cause death of the deceased. In fact, going by the prosecution case, it would appear that the deceased had helped the appellant by giving her financial accommodation of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, it cannot be accepted that this would provide any motive to the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the motive as a circumstance cannot be said to be established in this case. 21. The circumstance nos. (ii) (iii) and (iv) are all based on recovery panachanamas, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On a careful perusal of the evidence of the panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer, we find that the evidence as to recovery, is not satisfactory and worthy of credence. The appellant was arrested on 14.06.2015 and there were three successive recovery panchanamas, recorded, one each, on 15.06.2015, 16.06.2015 and 18.06.2015 (Exhibits 29, 31 and 38). In the first place, it cannot be accepted that an accused would give such successive statements, in stages and in piecemeal, to discover various articles from her house, which according to the prosecution are of incriminating nature. In the first place, it cannot be accepted that an accused would give such successive statements, in stages and in piecemeal, to discover various articles from her house, which according to the prosecution are of incriminating nature. That apart, it is now well settled that such discovery, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has to be in pursuance of a voluntary statement of the accused. A perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Kapil Nayak (PW-10) would show that this witness says that on 15.06.2015, the interrogation was restricted to the items recovered under the recovery panchanama dated 15.06.2015 (Exhibit-29). He states that during interrogation, under the first panchanama, he was “stressing on all the items which I had to recover”. The following portion of the cross examination of Kapil Nayak (PW- 10), would be relevant for this purpose:- “To the question whether the interrogation of the accused by me on 15.6.2015 was restricted to the items recovered under the Recovery Panchanama on that day, I say that during her interrogation, under the first panchanama, I was stressing on all the items which I had to recover. I say that during this panchanama, I was stressing on some things which I expected to recover first. It is true that under the recovery panchanama I was stressing on the M.O. Nos. 12 to 16 which were recovered under this panchanama. So also, in the recovery panchanama dated 16.06.2015, I had stressed on the gold items under M.O. Nos. 17 to 27, which were recovered under this panchanama and under the recovery panchanama on 18.06.2015, I had stressed on the cash under M.O. No. 28. During the three recovery panchanamas, the panchas were asking the accused what she wants to state and the panchanamas were proceeding. At the end of the first part of the first recovery panchanama under Exhibit C-29, in respect of what the accused had stated before the panchas, as found recorded on the reverse of page 1 of Exhibit C-29, the panchas nor myself had asked her if she has anything else to state. After 18.06.2015, when the third recovery panchanama was conducted, I had not further interrogated the accused.” 22. It can thus be seen that the recoveries cannot be said to be in pursuance of any voluntary statement. After 18.06.2015, when the third recovery panchanama was conducted, I had not further interrogated the accused.” 22. It can thus be seen that the recoveries cannot be said to be in pursuance of any voluntary statement. If the recovery of the articles was in pursuance of a voluntary statement, it is difficult to understand as to how, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the accused, restricting the interrogation in respect of items under panchanamas dated 15.06.2015, 16.06.2015 and 18.06.2015 (Exhibits 29, 31 and 38). The evidence as regards the discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in our considered view, is not acceptable and one inspiring confidence. 23. We would now briefly refer to the articles allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, which may be set out as under: Exb/Date Description of Articles M.O. No. Remarks 1Exhibit-29 dated 15.06.2015 Brown colour mobile handset & SIM Card (Exhibit-4) 12 IMEI number does not match Clothes (Red colur top & long pant (Exhibit-5) 13 No blood stains have been detected Knife (Exhibit-6) 14 Test of blood grouping inconclusive Scissor (Exhibit-7) 15 Thread/Nada (Exhibit-8) 16 No blood stains detected 2 Exhibit-31 dated 16.06.2015 Metal chain with round beads (Exhibit-9) 17 - Metal chain with pendant (Exhibit-10) 18 - Yellow metal chain (Exhibit-11) 19 - Chain type pair of earrings (Exhibit-12) 20 - Yellow metal ring (Exhibit-13) 21 - Bhangtila (Exhibit-14) 22 - Bracelet (Exhibit-15) 23 - Pair of earrings (Exhibit-16) 24 - Bangles (Exhibit-17) 25 - Bangles (Exhibit-18) 26 - Silver Colour purse (Exhibit-19) 27 - 3 Exhibit-38 dated 18.06.2015 Cash amounting to Rs. 9,100/-(Exhibit-20) 28 - 24. We would first deal with the panchanama dated 15.06.2015 (Exhibit-29). The clothes (M.O. No. 13) of the appellant would be a normal apparel found in any household. The clothes were not having any blood stains (i.e. Exhibit-K blood stains with no blood grouping). Insofar as the knife and scissors are concerned (M.O. Nos. 14 and 15 respectively), although, it was detected with human blood, the test of blood grouping was inconclusive. We would now come to the Nada/thread (M.O. No. 16). As noticed earlier, there were no blood stains detected on it. The said article was not referred to the medical officer to find out whether, the ligature marks correspond with the Nada/thread (M.O. No. 16). What is significant is that the Medical Officer Dr. We would now come to the Nada/thread (M.O. No. 16). As noticed earlier, there were no blood stains detected on it. The said article was not referred to the medical officer to find out whether, the ligature marks correspond with the Nada/thread (M.O. No. 16). What is significant is that the Medical Officer Dr. Avinash Pujari (PW-7), who conducted the post-mortem found a thread (Exhibit-K) in the hair strands of the deceased, which was not noticed during the inquest panchanama by the Investigating Officer. The said thread (Exhibit-K) was sent by the Medical Officer to the Investigating Officer, however, no attempt was made to ascertain whether, the thread (Exhibit-K) matches with the thread (M.O. No. 16). In the absence of the same, a nada/thread of the nature, as recovered, is an ordinary item found in any household and can hardly be said to be an incriminating article. Coming to the black colour mobile hand set (M.O. No. 12), the appellant admits that it was given by the deceased to her. The call data record (at page 235 of the paper book), does not take the case of the prosecution any further. The mobile hand set (M.O. No. 12) was a dual SIM mobile having IMEI No. 911231008042599 (for SIM no. 1) and IMEI No. 911231008143595 (for SIM no. 2). For ascertaining the call data record, the IMEI number is relevant. The call data record (at page 235 of the paper book) gives IMEI number as 911231008143590. The learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, does not dispute that the IMEI number does not match. Thus, the reliance placed on the call data record from the mobile hand set (M.O. No. 12), in our considered view, is misplaced. 25. The recovery panchanama dated 16.06.2015 (Exhibit-31) is about the gold ornaments and a silver purse. It is true that Sanil Kanse (PW-4) had produced certain bills, showing the purchase of the ornaments. However, what is significant is that the evidence of Macario Velho (PW-3) and Sanil Kanse (PW-4) does not show that immediately after the incident, it was reported to the police that the gold ornaments were missing. We are constrained to say that the recovery of the said ornaments has just been shown to bolster up the case against the appellant. This we say after considering the nature of the evidence of the three recovery panchanamas. 26. We are constrained to say that the recovery of the said ornaments has just been shown to bolster up the case against the appellant. This we say after considering the nature of the evidence of the three recovery panchanamas. 26. Under panchanama dated 18.06.2015 (Exhibit-38), an amount of Rs.9,100/- has been shown to be recovered from the side pocket of the fridge cover. Here again, Macario Velho (PW-3), who is the husband of the appellant has stated that the said amount was found by him and was handed over to the Mormugao P.S., however, one policeman brought it back asking him (PW-3) to keep it at one place in the pocket of the fridge cover. No attempt was made to declare Macario Velho (PW-3) as hostile. Considering the overall evidence, we find that the possibility of planting cannot be ruled out in this case. In any case, we are of the considered view that the evidence about the three discoveries, is not satisfactory, on which implicit reliance can be placed. Assuming for a moment that the recoveries are established, still we find that the same by themselves are incomplete, to form a chain by itself, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant. 27. The Supreme Court in the case of Mani (supra) has inter alia held that the evidence of discovery, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a weak kind of evidence and conviction in serious matters, cannot be based on such evidence. It is now well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the various circumstances are required to be of a definitive nature and have to be properly established. All such circumstances taken together, should form a complete chain, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The inference arising out of such circumstances, should not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt, but, should be consistent with the hypothesis of innocence. We find that essentially, there are only two circumstances relied upon, in the present case, namely, (i) motive and (ii) recovery of certain articles, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. These two circumstances, even if held to be proved, are insufficient to form a complete chain, pointing to the guilt of the accused. 28. We would now briefly deal with the aspect of false defence. These two circumstances, even if held to be proved, are insufficient to form a complete chain, pointing to the guilt of the accused. 28. We would now briefly deal with the aspect of false defence. It is now well settled that false defence, even if established, is not a separate circumstance or link in the chain of circumstances. If proved, it can strengthen the chain of circumstances, if already established. Once we hold that the circumstances are not established and they do not form any chain, the false defence even if proved, would be inconsequential. Nonetheless, we are also unable to accept the finding by the learned Sessions Judge that this is a case where, the false defence by the appellant can be said to be proved. The learned Sessions Judge in para 160 has stated that the claim of the appellant that the mobile hand set (M.O. No. 12) was given by the deceased to her is a false explanation and is an additional link. We find that such a reasoning cannot be accepted. It can neither be said to be false explanation nor an additional link. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the answer given by the appellant in reply to question no. 62 in order to submit that this is a false explanation. Here again, we would tend to disagree. The question no. 62 and the answer to it reads as under: “Q.62 - It is further in the evidence of PW4 that she was knowing you prior to 10.6.2015, as you had borrowed the sum of Rs.10,000/- from his mother and you had returned only Rs.5,000/- and the balance Rs.5,000/- was due from you to his mother. What have you to say ? Ans. It is false.” 29. The contention is that the appellant having claimed that the mobile (M.O. No. 12) was given to her by the deceased, has indirectly admitted that she was knowing the deceased. However, while responding to question no. 62, she has denied that she was knowing the deceased. We find that question no. 62 was essentially regarding the appellant having burrowed sum of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and having returned only Rs.5,000/- and the remaining Rs.5,000/- being outstanding. It is that part, that has been replied as denied as being false. However, while responding to question no. 62, she has denied that she was knowing the deceased. We find that question no. 62 was essentially regarding the appellant having burrowed sum of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and having returned only Rs.5,000/- and the remaining Rs.5,000/- being outstanding. It is that part, that has been replied as denied as being false. The statement has to be read as a whole and there is nothing in reply to the question no. 62 to suggest that the appellant had denied that she was knowing the deceased. We thus find that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence led. 30. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. (c) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 397 of IPC. (d) The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. (e) Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. (f) The order regarding disposal of property is hereby maintained.