JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - No one was present on behalf of the accused-appellant on 20/02/2019 & 26/02/2019. Since the accused was unrepresented, he was produced before the Court on 11/04/2019 through production warrant. He expressed his inability to engage a counsel, therefore, Shri Deepak Choudhary, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the accused-appellant. 2. The appeal aforesaid has been preferred by the accused-appellant Prem Singh against the judgment dated 29/06/2013 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.116/2012, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced as under :- Offence Sentence Fine In default 302 IPC Life Imprisonment 1,000/- 6 months' additional S.I. 201 IPC Seven Years R.I. 1,000/- 6 months' additional S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded from a written report (Ex.P.4) submitted by Munna Lal Bishnoi (PW.3) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur on 18/02/2010 is that he is the resident of Pali Road, Jodhpur. On 18/02/2010 at around 11 a.m., while he was standing outside his shop, his nephew went across the road near the drinking water pipeline for easing himself. He rushed back and informed that a dead-body was lying behind the pipeline. He and his nephew went back to the spot and saw the dead-body of a woman lying on the other side of the pipeline. The hands of dead-body were strung up and throat of the dead-body was slitted. He informed the Police alleging that body had been dumped there by some unknown person. 4. On this written report, an FIR No. 56/2010 (Ex.P.27) was registered by the SHO, Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur on 18/02/2010. The investigation was commenced. The dead body was found to be of Santosh Choudhary who were involved in a live in relationship with the appellant. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P.28 on 22/02/2010. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the same and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution produced 19 witnesses apart from 61 documents to prove their case. 7. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the same and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution produced 19 witnesses apart from 61 documents to prove their case. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial, which he denied and stated that he came in contact with deceased Santosh Choudhary through Kalu Ram who was staying with Santosh Choudhary earlier. Santosh Choudhary left the company of Kalu Ram and had started staying with him. This was not palatable to Kalu Ram. He was annoyed with him and Santosh Choudhary. Thereafter, on a number of occasions, he pressurized Santosh Choudhary to come and stay with him but she refused to accompany him. Thus, he threatened her that he would kill her. On 17/02/2010, he had gone to Pali as his mother had fallen ill. He brought his mother to Jodhpur & took her to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital for treatment. He read the information about the recovery of dead body of a woman in the newspaper whereupon, he went to the Mortuary room to find out the identity of the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the police arrested him. He alleged that Santosh Choudhary had been murdered by somebody else and that he had been falsely implicated in the case and was innocent. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 29/06/2013. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Shri Deepak Choudhary, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant vehemently and fervently argued that there is no direct evidence in the present case and it is a case of very weak and unconvincing circumstantial evidence. The material prosecution witnesses PW.7 Abdul Salam and PW.9 Ajay Kumar Rathore, PW.10 Amrit Lal and PW.12 Kishan Singh have been declared hostile. 11. He further contended that PW.8 Rajaram Choudhary stated that he was staying in the same building, in which the appellant was staying with the deceased. The relationship between them was cordial. The material prosecution witnesses PW.7 Abdul Salam and PW.9 Ajay Kumar Rathore, PW.10 Amrit Lal and PW.12 Kishan Singh have been declared hostile. 11. He further contended that PW.8 Rajaram Choudhary stated that he was staying in the same building, in which the appellant was staying with the deceased. The relationship between them was cordial. PW.7 Abdul Salam who treated the deceased as his daughter also stated that the relationship between the appellant and Santosh Choudhary was affable. Therefore, there was no motive for the appellant to murder Santosh Choudhary. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae further urged that the prosecution theory is totally non-convincing in as much as that the accused would take the pain to remove the newspapers containing the news of the body being recovered from the building where he and Santosh resided on rent and yet the other incriminating articles like weapon of offence i.e. knife (Chaku), two bloodstained pillows, Chatai, mattress (Ghasia) would be casually left behind in the room. He further stated that it is not believable that while eliminating the evidence, a person will only remove the dead-body and some newspapers and allow the other incriminating articles to be kept lying at the scene of occurrence. This unusual theory makes the prosecution story highly doubtful and unreliable. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that as per the Investigating Officer - PW.19 Deva Ram, the colour of the trousers and shirt of the accused was stated to be 'Khakhi', whereas, in Ex.P.17 - Seizure memo, it is mentioned that the colour of the shirt was 'Khakhi' and the trousers were of 'Coffee' colour. In this view of the matter, the recovery of the clothes of the accusedappellant itself becomes doubtful as there is no certainty about the articles recovered and seized in the case. 14. On the strength of the submissions made above, learned amicus-curiae appearing for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him while setting aside the judgment dated 29/06/2013 passed by learned trial Court. 15. E-Converso, learned public prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. E-Converso, learned public prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances in the case is so complete which only indicates that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the murder of Santosh Choudhary. The fact that Santosh Choudhary was staying with the appellant has been proved beyond all manner of doubt in the evidence of PW.7 Abdul Salam and PW.8 Rajaram Choudhary. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellant to explain the circumstances in which Santosh died. The recovery of bloodstained clothes, weapon of offence i.e. knife, Ghasia (Mattress), Two Pillows & Chatai from the room of the appellant bearing the same blood group as that of Smt. Santosh Choudhary (as per the FSL) clearly establishes that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the murder of Santosh Choudhary. As per the FSL Report, 'B' group of human blood was found on the recovered articles i.e. weapon of offence (knife), Ghasia (Mattress), Two Pillows & Chatai matching with the blood group of the deceased as found on her clothes sent for FSL. 16. He further contended that the defence of the appellant that he went to Pali as his mother suddenly fell ill is also far from truth as no evidence in support of illness of his mother has been produced on record. 17. On the strength of these arguments, learned public prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt and, therefore, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offences alleged vide judgment dated 29/06/2013. 18. We have considered the submissions made at bar and have minutely sifted through the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment dated 29/06/2013 rendered by the trial Court. 19. Pw.3 Munnalal though has been declared hostile, yet he stated that when he saw the dead-body of a woman lying behind the pipeline across the road of his shop, he informed the Police Control Room. 20. Pw.7 Abdul Salam stated that he is a contractor of masonry work and Santosh Choudhary came with Kalu Ram for performing the job of labour at his contracted sites. He got acquainted with her from that point of time. 20. Pw.7 Abdul Salam stated that he is a contractor of masonry work and Santosh Choudhary came with Kalu Ram for performing the job of labour at his contracted sites. He got acquainted with her from that point of time. Santosh Choudhary became a regular visitor at his house and, therefore, he started treating her as his daughter. Two years prior to the incident, Kalu Ram left Santosh Choudhary. Santosh Choudhary got engaged in a love marriage with Prem Singh and started cohabiting with him at a rented accommodation in Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur. She informed him that she was living comfortably with the present appellant. He saw the photograph of Santosh in the newspaper and went to the MGH Mortuary where he identified her. She was murdered by slitting her throat/neck. He did not suspect that Santosh had been murdered by the appellant. 21. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 22. Pw.8 Rajaram Choudhary stated in his testimony that he was staying at the top floor of the same building in which the appellant was staying with Santosh in one of the rooms at the ground floor. He interacted with the appellant and his wife once in a while. When he saw the photograph of a woman in the newspaper, he got suspicious and telephoned Basni Police Station to clear his doubt and, thereafter, he went to the Mortuary of the MGH Hospital. After seeing the dead-body, he recognized that the deceased was Santosh wife of appellant Prem Singh. The appellant Prem Singh was missing from his room since 18/02/2010. During the course of investigation, recoveries were effected by the police in the presence of this witness and he affixed his signatures on the memos prepared by the police. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief. 23. Pw.9 Ajay Kumar Rathore was the owner of three wheeler passenger taxi which on which the appellant was engaged as a driver. He stated that appellant Prem Singh telephoned him on 21/02/2010 but he did not make any confession that he had murdered his wife by slitting her throat or that he had dumped her body behind the pipeline at the Pali Road. This witness has also been declared hostile. 24. He stated that appellant Prem Singh telephoned him on 21/02/2010 but he did not make any confession that he had murdered his wife by slitting her throat or that he had dumped her body behind the pipeline at the Pali Road. This witness has also been declared hostile. 24. However, in the cross-examination, the witness stated that on 18/02/2010, the appellant had parked the taxi in the school and went away on account of his mother's illness. Thereafter, the taxi was brought back through some other driver. 25. Pw.10 Amrit Lal is the landlord of the house in which the appellant was staying along with Santosh. He has been declared hostile. 26. Pw.19 Deva Ram is the Police Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law. 27. Pw.2 Dr. Ganpat Singh Choudhary who conducted the autopsy upon the dead-body of the deceased Smt. Santosh Choudhary, described the dimensions and places of injuries present on the body of deceased and stated that the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to the sharp throat/neck injury. 28. The Postmortem Report is Ex.P.3 wherein the cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage due to cutting injury to neck. The recovery of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. knife as well as bloodstained clothes of the accused-appellant was effected vide Recovery Memos (Ex.P/9 & Ex.P/17 respectively) in pursuance to the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/33). The FSL Report is Ex.P.41 wherein 'B' blood group was found on the pants, knife, pillow matching with the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased. 29. The fact that Santosh Choudhary was staying with the appellant is fortified from the testimony of PW.7 Abdul Salam and PW.8 Rajaram Choudhary. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses as PW.7 Abdul Salam was treating Santosh Choudhary as his daughter and PW.8 Rajaram who is an Advocate, was staying in the same building in which the appellant and Santosh Choudhary used to live. The witness stated that he met them occasionally. As the appellant was keeping Santosh Choudhary as his wife without there being any problem, when she went missing, it was incumbent upon the appellant to make some efforts to find her whereabouts. The witness stated that he met them occasionally. As the appellant was keeping Santosh Choudhary as his wife without there being any problem, when she went missing, it was incumbent upon the appellant to make some efforts to find her whereabouts. However, nothing on record shows or suggests that any endeavour was made by the appellant to find out where Santosh Choudhary had gone as she was not seen for about six days prior to the recovery. He did not make any efforts to even call or contact PW.7 Abdul Salam, more particularly, when both of them used to visiting him as being a guardian of the woman. This shows seriously unnatural conduct of the appellant giving rise to a strong suspicion against him. 30. The fact that the bloodstained clothes, pillow and knife were recovered from the room of the appellant having bloodstains matching with the blood group of the deceased, leads to the only conclusion that it was none other than the appellant who murdered Santosh Choudhary as there is nothing on record to show that any person other than the appellant had visited their room or had accessed thereto. Further, since the appellant and Santosh Choudhary were staying together as husband and wife and nobody else was access therein, it was necessary for the appellant to give a reasonable explanation regarding the abrupt disappearance of Santosh Choudhary and since he has not discharged the burden as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the facts which are on record clearly establish that he solely was the one behind the murder of the lady which was perpetrated within the confines of the rented room. 31. It has also come on record that the taxi (RJ-19-PA-1608) which was driven by the appellant was found abandoned and recovered vide Ex.P.29 shows that since the appellant was a taxi driver, after assaulting & slitting the throat of Santosh Choudhary, he took her dead body in the taxi and dumped the same at the Pali Road and, thereafter left the taxi in an abandoned condition & then he did not return to his room. 32. 32. A plea of alibi based on the illness of his mother at Pali has been taken by the appellant in defence but the same is noted to be rejected as no document in support of her illness has been brought on record to substantiate this weak defence plea of alibi. Besides this, we find that in view of the clinching evidence of the recovery of bloodstained clothes of the appellant, pillow and weapon of offence i.e. knife from the room in which the appellant and deceased were staying together being completely corroborated from the medical evidence and the failure of the appellant in discharging the shifted burden of proof as per Section 106 IPC completes the chain of circumstances establishing that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the commission of murder of Santosh Choudhary. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram , (2006) 12 SCC 254 while recapitulating the principles of governing Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has held as under :- " 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 a 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 on 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. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. 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 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." 34. We are not least impressed by the defence counsel's plea regarding the minor deviations with respect to the colour of the pants and bushirt being 'Coffee' and 'Khakhi' which is not significantly different much less, in the circumstances discussed above even if it is there, it is of such a trivial nature which cannot adversely influence the prosecution case. 35. The argument that PW.7 Abdul Salam, PW.9 Ajay Kumar Rathore, PW.10 Amrit Lal and PW.12 Kishan Singh have been declared hostile is also of not much help to the defence as the chain of circumstances discussed above which is established by clinching pieces of evidence clearly establishes the fact that the appellant was involved in the commission of the offence alleged in the case. 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar Vs. State of Haryana , (2017) AIR SC 3441 has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, certain principles are to be followed which are as under: "1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 37. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 37. In our view, the chain of circumstances in the present case is so complete which indicates that it was the appellant alone and none else who had committed the murder of Santosh Choudhary and, therefore, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offence alleged in the present case. 38. In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present criminal appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment dated 29/06/2013 passed by trial Court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.