JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Anoopgarh in Sessions Case No. 08/2009:- Under Section 302 Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 364 Ten years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 201 One year's RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted here in below:- The SHO PS Anoopgarh received a telephonic information on 04.01.2009 that a dead body of a woman was lying at Khokhrawali Road. Shri Kashiram ASI was sent to the place of incident where Ramswarup, Sarpanch submitted a written report (Ex. P/1). The ASI undertook the requisite inquest proceedings and returned to the Police Station where Marg Report No. 01/2009 was registered under Section 174 CrPC. The inquest proceedings were concluded and the report was presented before the SDM concerned. During the inquiry conducted by the SDM, the dead body identified to be of Smt. Bhagwanti, was handed over to her maternals for cremation. Omprakash (PW. 2), uncle of the deceased lodged a written report (Ex. P/17) to the SHO PS Anoopgarh alleging inter alia that his niece Bhagwanti D/o Amarchand was married to Sewa Nand (appellant herein). She had gone out of house on 03.01.2009 at 9:30 p.m. to attend the call of nature. Thereafter, she did not return. She was carrying a mobile phone No. 9649051955 with her. Omprakash alleged that search was made for Bhagwanti in the night but she could not be traced out. In the morning of 4th January at about 10:00 am, they received an information that a female dead body was lying on the Khokhrawali Road. They went there and came to know that the dead body was of Bhagwanti, who had been murdered by some unknown persons. In the morning of 4th January at about 10:00 am, they received an information that a female dead body was lying on the Khokhrawali Road. They went there and came to know that the dead body was of Bhagwanti, who had been murdered by some unknown persons. Bhagwanti was married to Sewa Nand and she was carrying a pregnancy of nine months and had come to the maternal home 8-9 days earlier. Numerous marks of violence were clearly visible on the dead body. Bhagwanti's mother Smt. Kamla told him that the accused-appellant Sewa Nand had called Bhagwanti at 9:30 p.m. whereafter she went out of the house. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 06/2009 was registered at the Police Station Anoopgarh for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer Kashiram (PW. 16) recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses. Broken bangles and footwear of the deceased Bhagwanti, her ornaments and blood stained soil etc. were collected from and nearby the body. The deceased was nine months' pregnant and a dead child was born from her womb, the panchnama whereof was also prepared. 4. The accused-appellant was arrested on 07.01.2009. In furtherance of the information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Investigating Officer Kashiram (PW. 16) claims to have recovered broken pieces of bangles belonging to the deceased from the vehicle of the accused-appellant. The mobile phone owned by the deceased was also recovered from inside of a septic tank upon being pointed out by the accused-appellant in furtherance of the information given by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/45). The witness Pradeep Kumar (PW.8) gave evidence of having seen the deceased lastly in the company of the accused. After concluding investigation as prescribed by law, the Investigating Officer Kashiram (PW. 16) proceeded to file charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 364 & 201 IPC. 5. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar. The learned trial court framed charges for the aforestated offences against the accused-appellant who refuted the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, exhibited 66 documents and 12 articles to prove its case. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar. The learned trial court framed charges for the aforestated offences against the accused-appellant who refuted the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, exhibited 66 documents and 12 articles to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant denied the same and claimed to be innocent. Five documents were exhibited but no oral evidence was led in defence. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Shri S.R. Godara, Advocate representing the accused-appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He advanced the following contentions for assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and implored the Court to set aside the same and acquit the accused-appellant of the charges:- 1. That the statement of Pradeep Kumar (PW.8), the witness who claims to have seen the accused-appellant lastly in the company of the deceased is totally unreliable and unworthy of credence. In this regard, his submission was that the witness attested various documents/memorandums prepared by the IO on 04.01.2009 but at that point of time, he did not divulge that he had lastly seen the accused-appellant and the deceased Bhagwanti in company of each other. He further pointed out that the witness, upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., categorically stated that he had gone to Hanumangarh and returned only on 06.01.2009. He urged that when the witness was confronted with this part of his previous statement, he resiled from the same. Thus, his contention was that the testimony of Pradeep Kumar (PW.8) suffers from embellishments and is unworthy of credence. 2. Regarding recovery of mobile phone, alleged to be in the use of the deceased, made at the instance of the accused-appellant, the contention of Shri Godara was that this recovery is fake and fabricated. The two municipal employees namely Lalchand and Pawan Kumar who allegedly took out the mobile phone from the septic tank were not examined in evidence and thus, as per Shri Godara, the recovery is required to be discarded. 3. The two municipal employees namely Lalchand and Pawan Kumar who allegedly took out the mobile phone from the septic tank were not examined in evidence and thus, as per Shri Godara, the recovery is required to be discarded. 3. That the recovery of the vehicle of the accused-appellant and the bangles alleged to be of the deceased is inconsequential as none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the bangles were those of the deceased. Merely because, as per the FSL report, the bangles pieces were similar to those which were worn by the deceased, no adverse inference can be drawn because the possibility of broken bangle pieces having fallen in the vehicle in routine course cannot be ruled out. 4. That the call details (Ex. P/39, Ex. P/40 and Ex. P/43) which were relied upon by the prosecution in form of the scientific evidence against the accused-appellant are inadmissible in evidence. The Investigating Officer did not state anything about the manner in which he procured these call details. Furthermore, no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was proved on record by the prosecution so as to persuade the court to treat the call detail records to be admissible in evidence. 5. That the evidence of medical jurist Dr. M.L. Gupta (PW. 13) who conducted the post-mortem upon the body of the deceased is inadmissible. He is neither an expert nor a medical jurist. The postmortem report (Ex. P/29) does not mention the time of death or the weapon used to inflict injuries and thus, the same is vague. 6. That the prosecution failed to prove the requisite link evidence so as to establish that the incriminating articles seized during investigation remained in the self-same sealed condition right from the time of seizure till they reached the FSL and thus, the FSL report deserves to be discarded. He contended that the evidence of witnesses Omprakash (PW. 2), Dinesh Kumar (PW. 3), Prathvi Raj (PW. 5), Nirmala (PW. 10) and Smt. Kamla (PW. 11) is full of contradictions and embellishments. He further urged that none of these witnesses gave any concrete/substantive evidence to prove that the appellant had a motive to kill his wife, the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti who was carrying a pregnancy of nine months. 2), Dinesh Kumar (PW. 3), Prathvi Raj (PW. 5), Nirmala (PW. 10) and Smt. Kamla (PW. 11) is full of contradictions and embellishments. He further urged that none of these witnesses gave any concrete/substantive evidence to prove that the appellant had a motive to kill his wife, the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti who was carrying a pregnancy of nine months. He further urged that if at all, the appellant intended to kill Smt. Bhagwanti, he had many opportunities to do so while she was in his company at his own house. There was no reason as to why the appellant would chance discovery by calling Smt. Bhagwanti from her father's home and then terminating her life by violence. 7. That the conduct of IO Kashiram (PW. 16) reflects unfair motivated investigation to somehow or the other implicate the accused-appellant in this case. He urged that the recoveries made by the IO are totally cooked up and planted and should be discarded. 8. That there was no reason for the deceased to withhold from her maternal family relatives that her husband, the accused-appellant herein had called her out. He urges that the theory set up in the prosecution evidence that Smt. Bhagwanti received the call of the accused-appellant and left her father's house in a secretive manner is totally false because a woman would not require any permission from her maternal family relatives to go with her husband. He thus, urged that the entire prosecution case in this regard is suspicious and dubitable. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant of the charges. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused-appellant by leading cogent and clinching evidence. He urged that the mother, uncle and sister of the deceased namely Kamla (PW. 11), Omprakash (PW. 2) and Nirmala (PW. 10) have given wholesome evidence to prove that the appellant was bearing a suspicion in his mind regarding the fidelity of his wife, the deceased Bhagwanti. Fueled by motive, the appellant strategically planned to murder his wife. He purchased a mobile phone on 26th December, 2008 (the one recovered from the septic tank) and provided the same to the deceased before leaving her at her father's house. Fueled by motive, the appellant strategically planned to murder his wife. He purchased a mobile phone on 26th December, 2008 (the one recovered from the septic tank) and provided the same to the deceased before leaving her at her father's house. This fact has been proved by the bill of purchase (Ex. P/44). He called the deceased on the fateful night i.e., 03.01.2009 at about 9:30 p.m. This fact is mentioned in FIR as well as in the evidence of PW. 2 Omprakash, the first informant and Smt. Kamla (PW. 11), the mother of the deceased Bhagwanti. The allegation so levelled by these prosecution witnesses is thoroughly corroborated by the call detail records (Ex. P/39, Ex. P/40 & Ex. P/43). He further urged that no explanation has been offered by the appellant as to why he procured the mobile phone for the deceased just before dropping her off at the matrimonial home. He further contended that the incriminating call details record and the mobile tower locations which get substantially corroborated by the oral evidence establish conclusively that the accused travelled from his village to the place of incident, called the deceased out of her father's home and killed her by throttling and abandoned the dead body at the place where it was found. The call-details and tower location details of Smt. Bhagwanti's mobile match with the corresponding tower location of the mobile phone of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant murdered his own wife because he doubted her fidelity and thereafter, in order to destroy the evidence, he took away the mobile phone given to her and dropped the same in the septic tank so that the same could not be discovered. The phone was recovered from the tank in furtherance of the voluntary information provided by the accused-appellant to the IO and clinches his culpability in the crime. With these submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently prayed that this Court should uphold the impugned judgment and affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant. 8. We have appreciated the arguments advanced at bar and have thoroughly sifted the record and evaluated the evidence available on the file. Indisputably, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Following significant facts emerge from the evidence collected during trial:- 9. The marriage of the accused-appellant was solemnized with the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti about two years prior to her homicidal death. Indisputably, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Following significant facts emerge from the evidence collected during trial:- 9. The marriage of the accused-appellant was solemnized with the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti about two years prior to her homicidal death. She was at an advanced stage of pregnancy. The accused dropped her off at her father's house on 27.12.2008. Before that, he purchased the mobile phone No. 9649051955 on 26.12.2008 and provided the same to Smt. Bhagwanti. 10. Bhagwanti's mother Smt. Kamla was examined as PW. 11 at the trial and she categorically stated that Bhagwanti came to her house after her marriage for giving the examination of AISSE (All India Secondary School Examination) and at that time, she complained that her husband used to suspect her character and quarrelled with her on this count. Smt. Kamla (PW. 11) assured that they would counsel her husband in this regard. She came back to her matrimonial home on 27th December with her husband. At that time, she was about nine months' pregnant. The accused-appellant Sewa Nand stayed with them for a night and returned on the next day. On 03.01.2009 at about 9:30 p.m. Bhagwanti was sleeping beside her when she got a call on her mobile from Sewa Nand. The witness asked Bhagwanti as to who had called on which, she replied that it was her husband, Sewa Nand. Soon thereafter, Bhagwanti went out and did not return. Bhagwanti never contacted anyone other than Sewa Nand with her mobile phone. After the death of Bhagwanti, Pradeep Kumar (PW.8) came to offer his condolences and told that he had seen Bhagwanti being taken away by the accused-appellant in his Bolero vehicle. In her cross-examination, the witness was confronted with her investigational statement (Ex. D/5) wherein, she had stated that Sewa Nand used to cast a suspicion on Bhagwanti's character alleging that she was in an illicit affair with persons named Neta and Sandeep. The witness denied having given out these names. The most noteworthy fact is that no question whatsoever was put to the witness regarding her aspersion that the accused used to cast suspicion upon Smt. Bhagwanti on the premise that she was involved in some kind of extra-marital affair. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, the accused can be imputed the motive to commit the murder of his wife Smt. Bhagwanti. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, the accused can be imputed the motive to commit the murder of his wife Smt. Bhagwanti. The other significant fact which is noticeable from her evidence is that the defence did not question her about the fact that Sewa Nand had called Smt. Bhagwanti on her mobile at about 9:30 p.m. whereafter she went out and did not return. This fact would assume importance when the call detail records are discussed. 11. The defence counsel raised a serious objection regarding admissibility of the call detail records on the ground that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was either procured or proved so as to make these documents admissible. We proceed to consider this objection in light of the following observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Shafhi Mohammad vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh : Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2302/2017 decided on 30.01.2018, wherein it was observed as below: "(9). The term "electronic record" is defined in Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as follows: "Electronic record" means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche." (10). Expression "data" is defined in Section 2(o) of the Information Technology Act as follows. "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer." (11) The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory. (12) Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the requirement of procuring certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act being procedural can be relaxed by the Court wherever interest of justice so requires. 13. In the case at hand, the mobile call detail and tower location records of the mobile No. 9928907352 held by the accused-appellant and of the mobile No. 9649051955 provided by him to Smt. Bhagwanti were proved by the Investigating Officer. The mobile instrument which the accused provided to Smt. Bhagwanti was purchased on 26.12.2008. Its bill was exhibited as Ex. P/44. The instrument was recovered concealed inside a septic tank situated in the house of the accused upon being pointed out by him in furtherance of the information provided to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The call and tower details records of the two mobile phones for the 3rd of January, 2009 are wholesomely corroborated by the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statement of Smt. Kamla (PW. 11) that the accused called on the mobile phone No. 9649051955 provided to Smt. Bhagwanti at about 9:30 in the night. As per the call detail records (Ex. P/39, EX.P/40 & Ex. 11) that the accused called on the mobile phone No. 9649051955 provided to Smt. Bhagwanti at about 9:30 in the night. As per the call detail records (Ex. P/39, EX.P/40 & Ex. P/43), two calls were made from the mobile No. 9928907352 held by the accused-appellant to the mobile No. 9649051955 provided to Smt. Bhagwanti. As the call detail records get thorough corroboration from the oral evidence of Smt. Kamla on this aspect, we are of the firm view that the requirement of procuring a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove these call details can be relaxed. 14. The fervent contention of Shri Godara that there was discrepancy regarding IMEI number of the mobile instruments in the call details inasmuch the numerical 0' is substituted in place of the last digit of the actual IMEI number is also unacceptable because we have delved into the technical aspects of this issue and were apprised that while issuing the call details, the service providers replace last digit of the IMEI number of each mobile handset by the digit 0'. The other digits of IMEI numbers of both the instruments i.e., the one held by the accused-appellant and the other provided to the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti are exactly the same in the call detail records match fully. Thus, this objection of Shri Godara is untenable. 15. Having held that the call detail records are admissible in evidence inspite of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act not being proved, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment regarding the effect of the call detail records and the tower location of both the mobile numbers because we are of the firm view that these findings which have been extracted after a thorough analysis of the scientific data, more or less, conclude the issue regarding the culpability of the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt. In this regard, the trial court observed as below in paras 42 & 45 of its judgment:- ^^42- izFke dMh&izn'kZ ih 39 ls izn'kZ 43 ls irk pyrk gS fd Hkkxoarh ds eksckby ua9649051955 ij vkjksih lsokuan ds eksckbZy ua-9928907352 ls 17 budfexa dkWy vkbZA ;s lHkh dky 3-1-09 dks vkbZA blh Øe esa lsokuan us [kktwokyk ls oDr 7-21 ih ,e ij fnukad 3-1-09 dk Vkoj 57051 ¼[kktwokyk½ ls Hkkxoarh ls ckr dh vkSj [kktwokyk ls jokuk gqvkA oDr 7-35 ih ,e ij mlus Vkoj ua-18431] 13 ds ,l Mh&, Vkoj ls vU; fdlh ls ckr dh fQj vkjksih dqanyk 7 ds ,y Mh Vkoj ls oDr 7-40] 7-42 ij vU; fdlh ls ckr djrk gS fQj 8-39 ih ,e ij Vkoj 20063 vuwix<+ {ks= esa fdlh ls ckr djrk gSA ckn esa 8-51 o 9-05 ih ,e ij og 20082] 79 th ch Vkoj ls vU; ls ckr djrs gq, vkSj ,e vkSj var esa eksckbZy Vkoj 36763 eks[keokyk {ks= es fnukad 3-1-09 dh jkr dks 9-34 ih ,e vkSj 9-42 ih ,e ij e`rdk Hkkxoarh ls ckr djrk gSA izn'kZ ih 40 ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkjksih lsokuan [kktwokyk ls pydj 13 ds ,l Mh] 7 ds ,y Mh] 3 ,e ,y Mh] ?kM+lkuk] vuwix<+ es 79 th ch] eks[keokyk ds Vkoj {ks= ls Hkkxorh o vU; O;fDr;ksa ls ckr djrs gq, eks[keokyk igqapdj eks[keokyk esa gh Vkoj 36763 ds Vkoj {ks= esa 9-36-16 ih ,e o 9-42-32 ih ,e ij Hkkxoarh ls ckr djuk izdV gksrk gSA blls tkfgj gS fd vkjksih lsokuan ?kVuk dh jkf= eks[keokyk esa tgka Hkkxoarh dks cqyk;k x;k] ogk c[kwch ekStwn FkkA 45- pkSFkh dM+h & lk{kh dk'khjke ih M 16 vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh] ;qxjkt mQZ txnh'k ihM 7] eydh;rflag ih M 5 ds l'kiFk dFkuksa ls HkyhHkkafr izekf.kr gS fd tks Qksu vkjksih lsokuan us e`rdk Hkkxoarh dks fn;k Fkk] ogh Qksu vkjksih lsokuan ds ?kj ds vkxs uksgjk esa cjh dqbZ ¼'kkSpky;½ ls cjken gqvk ftldh QnZ izn'kZ ih 19 cukbZA bryk dh QnZ izn'kZ ih 45 cukbZA bu pkjksa xokgksa ls bl laca/k esa tks izfrijh{kk dh xbZ gS] og bl lk{khx.k ds dFkuks dk [kaMu djus esa vlQy jgh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g izekf.kr gS fd vkjksih lsokuan us viuh bŸkyk izn'kZ ih 45 ds eqrkfcd Hkkxoarh dk eksckbZy] ftlds fle ua-9649051955 cjken djok;k] tks vkjksih dk nqjk'k; izdV djrk gS] vU;Fkk vkjksih ds ikl Hkkxoarh dk mDr eksckbZy dgka ls vk;k vkSj ;fn vk Hkh x;k rks mlus mls dqbZ ¼’kkSpky;½ es D;ks MkykA^^ 16. It is clear as day light that the tower locations and the call details of both the mobile instruments conclusively corroborate the prosecution allegation that the accused-appellant contacted Smt. Bhagwanti from Khajuwala at about 7:21 p.m. on 03.01.2009. Thereafter, he talked to few other people while travelling from Khajuwala towards Mokamwala where Bhagwanti's maternal home is located. He contacted Smt. Bhagwanti at 9:34 p.m. and 9:42 p.m. respectively. On receiving the calls of the accused-appellant, Smt. Bhagwanti who was at her mother's house, went out in a routine way. Thereafter the call details of the mobile phone held by the deceased culminated because the call made by the accused at 21:42 hours is the last call made to that number. The tower number in which both the mobile phones were functioning at that point of time was 47183 which is located at Mokhamwala. This clearly establishes that both phones were within the domain of the mobile tower at Mokamwala at the same time. The fact that the accused made no effort whatsoever to call his wife after the last call at 21:42 hours on 03.01.2009 is also indicative of his guilty state of mind. The accused was arrested as late as on 07.01.2009. If at all, he was totally unconnected with the homicidal death of his wife, then, there was no reason as to why, he made no attempt whatsoever to contact her after the last call he made to her on 03.01.2009 at 9:42 p.m. As has been stated above, the dead body of Smt. Bhagwanti was discovered in an abandoned state on 04.01.2009. The Marg report was lodged by Ramswarup, Sarpanch on 04.01.2009 at about 9:00 a.m. and the FIR came to be lodged on 05.01.2009 at 7:15 p.m. If the accused was so anxious to keep in touch with his pregnant wife at her father's home that he provided her a new mobile phone on 26/27.12.2008 and had contacted her frequently till 03.01.2009, there could not have been any reason as to why he would go totally silent after 03.01.2009 and make no effort whatsoever to give a call on her mobile. If at all the deceased was not answering or the mobile call was not being connected, then, he could have called any of his matrimonial relatives to ensure about the well-being of his pregnant wife. If at all the deceased was not answering or the mobile call was not being connected, then, he could have called any of his matrimonial relatives to ensure about the well-being of his pregnant wife. Thus, the only hypothesis of these facts is that the accused provided the mobile to Smt. Bhagwanti so that he could take her away from her father's house and kill her inconspicuously and escape detection. 17. The contention of Shri Godara regarding the recovery of the mobile phone being fainted is untenable. In this regard, we have gone through the statements of IO Kashiram (PW. 16) and the panch witnesses. True it is that the two municipal employees who actually dredged the mobile phone out from inside the septic tank were not examined at the trial but this omission by itself could not act to the detriment of the recovery procedure. The fact that the mobile phone was thrown by the accused-appellant inside the septic tank dug in his own house could be known to him alone and none else. The accused took care of removing the sim from the instrument and then threw the same inside the septic tank from where the same was recovered. On going through the statement of IO Kashiram (PW. 16), we are duly satisfied that he proved the factum of recovery of the mobile phone by giving unimpeachable and convincing evidence. No significant cross examination was made from him on this aspect. The motbir witnesses Prithviraj (PW. 5), Malkeet Singh (PW. 6) and Yugraj @ Jagdish (PW. 7) fully supported the recovery proceedings. Thus, we are convinced that the recovery of the mobile phone possessed by the deceased Smt. Bhagwanti was faithfully made by the IO Kashiram in furtherance of the voluntary information provided by the accused to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery proceedings do not suffer from any flaw or shortcoming whatsoever. The burden to prove as to how the mobile instrument possessed by the deceased till the time of her disappearance from her father's home came into the hands of the accused would be on him and none else. As the accused failed to discharge this burden, the presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act would clearly operate against him. As the accused failed to discharge this burden, the presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act would clearly operate against him. Our view is fortified by the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulabchand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1995 SC 1598 :- "4. We have considered the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also by the High Court and we have been taken through the evidences adduced in this case. It has been established in the instant case that the appellant Gulab Chand was taken into custody on 27th April, 1979 by the police and when the police searched his house with the key supplied by the accused, a musical instrument called Banjo was found in his room and from inside the said instrument, the police seized golden Tabij (Article 10), two pair of Jhumkas (Article 11), Shrinagaridan (Article 9), silver bangles (Article 7), one brass Bungari (Article 21) and currency notes worth Rs. 1200. It has also been established in this case that on the information given by the said accused, the police seized certain silver ornaments from PW. 12. Balram from his shop at Jabalpur and it has been established that the accused sold the said ornaments to Balram and signed in the register maintained by Balram in proof of selling the said ornaments. It has also been established by cogent evidence that the said ornaments belonged to the deceased. It may be stated that 29th May, 1979, a test identification Parade was held in which the recovered ornaments were duly identified as belonging to the deceased by Durgaprasad and other witnesses. It is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. It has been indicated by this Court in Santhanakrishnan vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54 , that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstances. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. It has been indicated by this Court in Santhanakrishnan vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54 , that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstances. It has also been indicated that where only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. A note of caution has been given by: by indicating that suspicion should not take the place of proof. It appears that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment has taken note of the said decision of this Court. But as rightly indicated by the High Court the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The High Court has placed reliance on the other decision of this Court rendered in Tulsiram vs. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 . In the said decision,: has indicated that the presumption permitted to be drawn under Section 114, illustration (a) of the Evidence Act has to be read along with the 'important time factor'. If the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if Several months had expired in the interval, the presumption cannot be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, it has been established that immediately on the next day of the murder, the accused Gulab Chand had sold some of the ornaments belonging to the deceased and within 3-4 days, the recovery of the said stolen articles was made from his house, at the instance of the accused. Such close proximity of the recovery, which has been indicated by this Court as an "important time factor", should not be lost sight of in deciding the present case. Such close proximity of the recovery, which has been indicated by this Court as an "important time factor", should not be lost sight of in deciding the present case. It may be indicated here that in a later decision of this Court in Earabharappa vs. State of Karnataka, 1983 CriLJ 846, this Court has held that the nature of the presumption and illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the stolen articles where such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. In our view, it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against the appellant. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of this case, it appears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court and accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed." 18. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court and accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed." 18. The broken pieces of the bangles recovered from the vehicle of the accused-appellant were forwarded to the FSL from where a report (Ex. P/36) was received that all the broken pieces were identical in respect of colour, thickness, design etc. Thus, this circumstance also points towards the complicity of the accused-appellant in the murder of his own wife. 19. The links of incriminating circumstances which have been enumerated and discussed above form a complete unbroken chain unexceptionally and invariably pointing towards the guilt of the accused. There is no reason to doubt the same. The learned trial court was, therefore, justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged him. The impugned judgment dated 26.04.2016 does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality whatsoever. 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The impugned judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 08/2009 is upheld. The record be returned forthwith.