JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant-accused is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, District-Bharuch Camp at Ankleshwar (herein after referred to as ‘the Sessions Court’) in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2012, arising out of Cr. I 74/2011 registered at Ankleshwar Rural Police Station. By the said Judgment and Order, the Sessions Court has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The Sessions Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded before the Sessions Court was that the deceased Mehul aged about 8 years happened to be the son of the complainant Melabhai alias Mukeshbhai Gordhanbhai and was studying in Std. 2 at Nagal Primary School. On 30.08.2011, the said Mehul did not come back home from the school and his friend Sahilbhai Vijaybhai Vasava brought his school bag. Hence, the mother of the deceased Diwaliben asked him as to where Mehul was. The said Sahil told her that after the recess in the school, the accused Haresh alias Hanan had taken him to the field for having guava and thereafter, he had not come back. The said Diwaliben therefore, went out to search her son Mehul. On the way, she met her father-in-law Gordhanbhai. Thereafter, Gordhanbhai along-with two others went to the field of Ambubhai Vasava, where Mehul was found injured and was bleeding and was dead. In the meantime, Diwaliben informed her husband Melabhai alias Mukeshbhai by calling him on phone. The said Gordhanbhai thereafter had taken the deceased Mehul to home and then to the hospital. The said Melabhai also went straight to the hospital however, his son was found dead. Melabhai therefore lodged the complaint before the Ankleshwar Rural Police Station. It was alleged in the said complaint inter alia that about one month back the complainant and his wife had gone out for work and his elder daughter Padmaben and his son Mehul were at home, and at that time the accused Haresh alias Hanan had come to their home and had started teasing and inappropriately behaving with Padma. It was alleged in the said complaint inter alia that about one month back the complainant and his wife had gone out for work and his elder daughter Padmaben and his son Mehul were at home, and at that time the accused Haresh alias Hanan had come to their home and had started teasing and inappropriately behaving with Padma. Therefore, his son Mehul had told Haresh alias Hanan not to misbehave with his sister otherwise he would tell his mother. According to the complainant, the accused keeping vengeance of the said incident had killed his son Mehul. The said complaint was registered as I CR. NO. 74/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the Ankleshwar Rural Police Station. 3. The investigating officer after carrying out the investigation and collecting sufficient evidence against the appellant-accused, had submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of JMFC, Ankleshwar, who had committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court framed the charge against the accused at Exhibit 6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The said charge was read over to the accused, however he denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the charge leveled against the accused, had laid oral evidence by examining as many as 18 witnesses and had also produced documentary evidence. On the completion of the evidence by the prosecution, the further submission of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him and claimed to be innocent. The Sessions Court, after considering the evidence on record and the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as stated here-in-above. 4. The learned Advocate Mr. P.H. Buch appearing for the appellant taking the Court to the evidence laid before the Sessions Court submitted that the entire case of the prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. He also submitted that there were material contradictions and omissions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which were fatal to the case of the prosecution. He also submitted that there were material contradictions and omissions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which were fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to him, the P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and P.W.6 were the close relatives of the deceased and therefore, were the interested witnesses whose testimony is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. He also submitted that Sahil the friend of the deceased who had allegedly last seen the deceased with the accused has not been examined, and the other witnesses i.e. P.W.9 Savitaben Chaturbhai and P.W. 10 Dahyabhai Valabhai Aahir have not fully supported the case of prosecution. Learned Advocate Mr. Buch also submitted that the investigation carried out by the investigating officer also does not get support from the panch witnesses. The prosecution had also failed to prove the motive or the intention of the appellant-accused. The discovery of the alleged muddamal article-Axe was also not free from suspicion. In short, according to learned Advocate Mr. Buch the entire evidence of the prosecution being not trustworthy, it could not be said that the guilt of the accused was proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. 5. The learned APP Ms. Nisha Thakore however vehemently submitted that merely because some of the witnesses were close relatives of the deceased, their entire evidence could not be discarded on that ground alone. She also submitted that the prosecution had proved the entire chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and after the same is read cumulatively, it unerringly points finger to the guilt of the accused. According to her, apart from the evidence of the close relatives of the deceased, P.W.8 shopkeeper Ramanbhai Narottambhai Patel had supported the case of the prosecution that the deceased was lastly seen together with the appellant-accused. 6. In the instant case, it is true that there was no eye witness to the alleged incident and the entire case of the prosecution hinged on the circumstantial evidence. However, it is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement of the accused. The cases of circumstantial evidence have to be dealt with greater care and microscopic examination of documentary and oral evidence on record. The cases of circumstantial evidence have to be dealt with greater care and microscopic examination of documentary and oral evidence on record. The Supreme Court while reiterating the decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone, observed as under in case of Manu Sao versus State of Bihar reported in (2010) 12 SCC 310 : “7. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain if events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness to the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard. 8. A three-Judge Bench in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra held as under: “152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up to date, for instance, the cases of Tufail v. State of U.P. and Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case: '10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.' 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be' or 'should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: '19. ...Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.' (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, 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. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”” 7. Hence, keeping in mind the afore stated settled legal position, let us examine the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case. 8. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 who was the panch witness Dhanjibhai Bhavanbhai Patel. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”” 7. Hence, keeping in mind the afore stated settled legal position, let us examine the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case. 8. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 who was the panch witness Dhanjibhai Bhavanbhai Patel. He had stated that on 31.08.2011, he was called upon by the Police for drawing panchnama of the scene of offence. At that time, one Rameshbhai Patel was also with him. They had gone to the place of offence at the field at Ghorwada, as shown by Melabhai Gordhanbhai Vasava. He had stated that they had seen the blood lying near the tree of guava, from where the Police had collected the blood stained earth and packed the same with the tag having signatures of all the panch witnesses. He also stated that there was one guava having blood stains on it and the same was also seized by the police. He had admitted the contents of the Panchnama Exhibit 10. The said panch witness was cross-examined by the defence however, nothing significant has surfaced there from. 9. Similarly, the prosecution had examined P.W.2 panch witness Ranchodbhai Becharbhai Patel at Exhibit 14, in whose presence muddamal article Axe was recovered from the house of one Arjunbhai. He had stated that on 03.09.2011 he was called by the Ankleshwar Police Station, and he along with others and the accused had gone to the village Nagal. The said accused had taken them to the house of the Arjunbhai, from where he had taken out an Axe from the shelf. The said Axe had blood stains, and it was seized by the Police. He has also stated that thereafter they had gone to the house of the accused from where the pant and shirt of the accused were seized by the Police and the panchnama was drawn in that regard. On showing the muddamal article Axe and the said clothes i.e. pant and shirt, in the Court, the said panch witnesses had identified and stated that they were the same as seized by the Police. He had admitted the contents of the Panchnama Exhibit 15. On showing the muddamal article Axe and the said clothes i.e. pant and shirt, in the Court, the said panch witnesses had identified and stated that they were the same as seized by the Police. He had admitted the contents of the Panchnama Exhibit 15. In the cross-examination he had admitted that after they reached the village Nagal, their vehicle was parked at one place and they had gone walking at the place shown by the accused. He had denied that the muddamal article Axe and the clothes of the accused were shown to him by the Police and not by the accused. The other panch witness examined by the prosecution was P.W. 13 Natvarbhai Govindbhai at Exh. 38 in whose presence the clothes of the deceased Mehul were seized by the Police as per the panchnama at Exh. 20. 10. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the prosecution had examined P.W. 11 Dr. Vinodkumar Brijnandan Upadhyay at Exhibit 32, who had carried out the postmortem of the deceased Mehul Melabhai Vasava. The postmortem note is on record at Exh. 33 in which the following injuries have been noted: (1) Cut wound with depressed fracture of provtal bone at lower position of froutal scalp and upper forehead, middle portion detected size 4.5 cm long, 2.5 cm wide, 12 cm depth. Bleeding present from wound, wound margin sharp, cut hair present at wound horizontal obli in direction hargin harteds. (2) 2 cm long vertical cut wound at lower position of forehead, sharp margin bleeding present invated margin. 11. The cause of death is shown therein was 'shock due to craviocerebral injuries'. The doctor has also reiterated the said injuries and the cause of death in his substantive evidence before the Court. He had also stated that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and mentioned in columns 17 and 19 of the postmortem report were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and such injuries were possible with the muddamal article-Axe shown to him in the Court. From the said evidence, it was duly proved that the deceased had received the injuries on his head, which were possible to be inflicted with the muddamal Axe, and they were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 12. From the said evidence, it was duly proved that the deceased had received the injuries on his head, which were possible to be inflicted with the muddamal Axe, and they were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 12. The case of the prosecution postulated before the Sessions Court was that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused and to propound the theory of “last seen together”, the prosecution has examined the relatives, friend and the teacher of the the deceased. His mother Diwaliben Melabhai Vasava was examined as P.W.5 at Exhibit 25. She had stated inter alia that one month prior to the date of incident, when she and her daughter had gone out taking cattle for grazing, her eldest daughter Padma and son Mehul were at home and at that time the accused Haresh alias Hanan had come to their home and started misbehaving with her daughter Padma. Her son Mehul therefore had told the accused not to misbehave or tease Padma otherwise he would complain to his parents. With regard to the incident she stated that on 30.08.2011 when she came home at about 4:30 P.M., her son Mehul did not return from the school and his friend Sahil came with the schoolbag of Mehul. She therefore inquired as to where Mehul was, and Sahil had told her that Mehul had gone with Haresh to eat Guava. She further asked that where had they had gone, to which Sahil told her that they had gone to the field at Ghorwada. She therefore, went out in search of her son but he was not found, and then she went to see her father-in-law Gordhanbhai. Her father-in-law told her that he had seen Haresh coming with an Axe in his hand from the field. Her father-in-law also told her to inform her husband and therefore, she had gone to make a phone call to her husband and her father-in-law Gordhanbhai had gone to search Mehul at the field at Ghorwada where the dead body of Mehul was seen lying in injured and bleeding condition. Her father-in-law thereafter had taken Mehul to the hospital, however he was already dead. In the cross examination, she had adhered to her version stated in the examination in chief. She had admitted that she had not gone to the field at Ghorwada and her father-in-law alone had gone there. Her father-in-law thereafter had taken Mehul to the hospital, however he was already dead. In the cross examination, she had adhered to her version stated in the examination in chief. She had admitted that she had not gone to the field at Ghorwada and her father-in-law alone had gone there. She had also admitted that her husband had gone directly to the hospital, and that since she was under great shock, she had come back home. 13. The complainant Melabhai alias Mukeshbhai Gordhanbhai Vasava was examined at Exhibit 22. Of course, he had lodged the complaint on the information given by his wife Diwaliben Vasava and had stated that the accused had kept vengeance about a incident which had taken place one month back at their home. He had stated that when he saw his son Mehul at the hospital, he had injuries on his head and he was bleeding, and was already found dead and therefore, he had lodged the complaint. In the cross examination, he had denied that he had strained relations with the accused and that he had filed false complaint against him. 14. The daughter of the complainant-Padmaben Melabhai Vasava was examined at Exhibit 24. She had also reiterated the same version as stated by her mother Diwaliben as regards the incident of the accused coming their home one moth back and misbehaving with her. She further stated that on the date of the incident on 30.08.2011 at about 1:30 P.M., the accused was roaming around her house and at about 2:00 P.M., her brother Mehul had come home from the school to keep a dish and thereafter had gone back to school. Thereafter, at about 4:30 P.M. her mother and her sister Sheela had come home and inquired about Mehul as one of his friend Sahil had brought his school bag and Mehul had not reached home. The said Sahil had told them that Mehul had gone with Haresh to have guava, and that he had also gone with Haresh, but Haresh had asked him to go back and therefore he had not accompanied them. This witness was also cross examined at length but nothing material adverse to the case of prosecution had come out. 15. The grandfather of the deceased-Gordhanbhai Kalabhai Vasava has also been examined at Exhibit 26. This witness was also cross examined at length but nothing material adverse to the case of prosecution had come out. 15. The grandfather of the deceased-Gordhanbhai Kalabhai Vasava has also been examined at Exhibit 26. He had also stated inter alia that at about 3:30 P.M., he had gone to see one Savitaben Chaturbhai to talk about her pension and when they were talking outside her home, he had seen the accused Haresh coming from the field with an Axe in his hand. Thereafter, at about 6:00 P.M. his daughter-in-law Diwaliben had come there and told him that Mehul had not come back home from the school, and therefore he had gone to search Mehul in the field at Ghorwada. He had stated that since he had seen the accused coming from the said field with the Axe in his hand, he had suspected that Mehul must be there. According to him, Arvindbhai Jentibhai, and Jentibhai Chotubhai had also accompanied him. When they reached the field at Ghorwada, they had seen the body of Mehul lying injured, bleeding and dead. He had guava in his hand. Thereafter, he had brought the dead body of Mehul at home and thereafter had taken to the hospital. He had identified the accused sitting in the Court. In the cross-examination he had stated that he was informed by his daughter-in-law at about 6:30 P.M. and he had taken the dead body of Mehul to the hospital at about 8:00 P.M. He had denied that he was falsely implicating the accused as he did not have good relations with him. 16. The friend of the deceased-Sahilbhai Vijaybhai Vasava who had brought the school bag of the deceased was examined at Exhibit 28. At that time, he was aged about seven years. He had stated that on the date of the incident, he alongwith Mehul and Rohan, was going towards their school and on the way they had met Haresh alias Hanan. The said Haresh had taken them to a shop from where he had bought bottles and chewing gums and thereafter they all were going to have guava in the field, however Haresh alias Hanan told him and Rohan to go back, and then only Mehul and Haresh had gone to have guava. In the cross-examination he had denied that he had given false deposition. 17. In the cross-examination he had denied that he had given false deposition. 17. The shopkeeper Ramanbhai Narottambhai Patel was examined at Exhibit 29. He had stated that at about 1:30 P.M. to 2:00 P.M., the accused Haresh had come with three boys and had purchased chocolates and cold drinks from his shop. Ofcourse, he did not know what happened thereafter. 18. The teacher in the school where the deceased was studying, Mr.Vimalbhai Karsanbhai Patel was examined by the prosecution at Exhibit 39. He had stated that on the date of incident during the recess between 1:30 P.M. to 2:30 P.M., he had seen Sahil, Rohan and Mehul having their midday meal in the school, but after the recess Mehul was found absent. He used to record attendance of the students in the register twice in a day. He had also brought the attendance register with him to show that in the second half Mehul was not present. 19. From the above discussed evidence of the mother, father, sister, grandfather, shop keeper, friend-Sahil and the teacher examined by the prosecution it was clearly established that the deceased was lastly seen together with the accused, which was a very strong circumstance, going against the accused. Of course, the learned Advocate Mr. Buch had tried to point out certain discrepancies in their respective evidences to show that the evidences of the said witnesses being all close relatives could not be believed. In this regard, it may be stated that merely because the witnesses happened to be the close relatives, they do not become the interested witnesses and even otherwise, the evidence of interested witnesses could not be brushed aside or washed off only on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased. 20. So far as the legal position with regard to appreciation of evidence of the close relatives of the deceased is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Dharnidhar versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 759 , has discussing various earlier decisions held that the evidence of the family members cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because they are close relatives of the deceased. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard may be reproduced as under: “12. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard may be reproduced as under: “12. There is no hardandfast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry [ (2010)1 SCC 199 ], this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: "23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 24. From a perusal of the record, we find that the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 is clear and categorical in reference to the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. They have clearly and consistently supported the prosecution version with regard to the beating and the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant on several occasions which compelled the deceased to leave the appellant's house and take shelter in her parental house with an intention to live there permanently. PWs 1 to 4 have unequivocally stated that the deceased feared threat to her life from the appellant. The aforesaid version narrated by the prosecution witnesses, viz. PWs 1 to 4 also finds corroboration from the facts stated in the complaint." 13. PWs 1 to 4 have unequivocally stated that the deceased feared threat to her life from the appellant. The aforesaid version narrated by the prosecution witnesses, viz. PWs 1 to 4 also finds corroboration from the facts stated in the complaint." 13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. [ AIR 2010 SC 917 ], where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the Court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.” 21. The crux of the afore stated legal position is that a close relative per se does not become interested witness. The evidence of a witness can not be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. The only thing is that such evidence has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. 22. Keeping in view afore stated legal position, if the evidence of witnesses is appreciated, the Court is of the opinion that it was clearly established by the prosecution that on the date of the incident, after the recess in the school, the deceased Mehul had come home and thereafter he along with his friend Sahil and Rohan, had gone with the accused Haresh alias Hanan to eat guava in the field, and that on the way Haresh had purchased chocolates and cold drinks from the shop of witness Ramanbhai Patel. It was also established that thereafter the accused Haresh had asked Rohan and Sahil to go back and he had taken Mehul with him to have guava in the field. Thereafter, Mehul was found missing and had not returned home till that evening. On the search having been made by his grandfather Gordhanbhai, he was found dead in the field of one Ambubhai at Ghorwada in the late evening. Thereafter, Mehul was found missing and had not returned home till that evening. On the search having been made by his grandfather Gordhanbhai, he was found dead in the field of one Ambubhai at Ghorwada in the late evening. He had injuries on the head and he was bleeding, when he was found dead in the field by his grandfather Gordhanbhai. Form the entire set of evidence, it was duly proved by the prosecution that the deceased was last seen together with the accused Haresh. However, when the said incriminating evidence was put before the accused during the course of recording his further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he had failed to explain as to what had happened to Mehul after he had taken him to eat guava in the field. It cannot be gainsaid that failure of the accused to give satisfactory explanation to an incriminating circumstance which was within his special knowledge, amounts to failure to discharge the onus which lies on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. At this juncture it would be germane to reproduce a very apt observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Kashi Ram reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 : 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of the person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation in the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.” 23. In the instant case, the accused having failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, had provided an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances proved against him. As stated herein above, the muddamal article Axe which was allegedly used for causing injuries to the said Mehul was discovered at the instance of the accused, in presence of panch witnesses and the defence had not been able to impeach the creditability of any of the panch witnesses. The said information given by the accused is also permissible to be relied upon as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in view of the decision in the case of Charandas Swami versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2017) 7 SCC 117. As per the F.S.L. report at Exhibit 43, the blood group of the blood found on the earth at the scene of offence tallied with the blood group of the deceased and also with the blood group of the blood found on the pant and shirt of the accused, seized at his instance from his house in presence of the panch witnesses. 24. The Court therefore has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had successfully brought home the guilt of the accused by proving the entire chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the said proved circumstances taken together unerringly point the guilt of the accused. 25. In that view of the matter, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant-accused had committed the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court does not require any interference. The appeal being devoid of merits, therefore is dismissed. 26. 25. In that view of the matter, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant-accused had committed the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court does not require any interference. The appeal being devoid of merits, therefore is dismissed. 26. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. Further order: After signing of the aforesaid order, it had come to our notice that the Sessions Court having not awarded any compensation to the victim, we hereby recommend under Section 357A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, to pay compensation to the victims i.e. the guardians of the deceased-Mehul. The matter is therefore referred to the District Legal Services Authority-Bharuch to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the victims as per their eligibility, under the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016, framed by the State Government vide notification dated 02.01.2016, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 357A of The Code of Criminal Procedure.