Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2176 (RAJ)

Yogendra Kumar Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-13

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellant Yogendra Kumar Kumawat has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 (NCV No. 08/2016). Offence Under Section Sentence Fine Fine Default sentences 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 50,000/- 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 the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- Inder Singh (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex. P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur on 20.10.2010 at 06.00 pm. alleging inter alia that on 20.10.2010, in the afternoon, he received telephonic information that his sister Manju had fallen ill and he should reach the hospital. The informant was nearing the hospital when he got a call from his wife to reach at his sister's house. On reaching there, he saw the dead body of his sister Manju lying on the floor of her matrimonial home at Chandna Bhakhar. He looked at the body of his sister and noticed blood on her face and on the other parts of her body. A large wound was visible on her neck which appears to have been inflicted by a sharp weapon. His brother-in-law Guman Singh told him that a gold chain and a gold ring worn by Smt. Manju was missing and a safe lying inside the house had been disturbed. 4. On the basis of report aforestated, an FIR No. 466/2010 (Ex. P/51) came to be registered at the Police Station Pratap Nagar for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was undertaken by Rajendra Prasad Diwakar (PW-24), SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar who prepared the formal documents viz. Panchnama Lash (Ex. P/3), site inspection plan, site inspection memo; lifted the blood lying at the place of incident in a cotton swab; seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased and after autopsy, he handed over the dead body of Manju to the family members for cremation. The place of incident was got photographed. During investigation, Shankarlal Tailor (PW-4), a neighbour of Guman Singh, gave a statement (Ex. The place of incident was got photographed. During investigation, Shankarlal Tailor (PW-4), a neighbour of Guman Singh, gave a statement (Ex. D/1) to the I.O. on 21.10.2010 stating that on the fateful day, between 01.00-02.00 pm., he had returned home from the market and was parking his motorcycle outside his house, when he looked towards the house of Guman Singh. At that time, an unknown person aged about 23-24 years came out of the house of Guman Singh and passed by the witness. The unknown person was wearing a dark coloured pant and full sleeved shirt. A little later, the witness heard cries coming out from Guman Singh's house. The neighbouring females collected and went to Guman Singh's house, they saw Guman Singh's wife lying on the floor in a bleeding condition. They raised a hue and cry on which, the witness also went to the house of Guman Singh and saw the woman in a badly injured condition. The witness with the aid of Bhairu Singh boarded Guman Singh's wife in Bhairu Singh's car and took her to the MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. On receiving the information, Guman Singh also reached there. Guman Singh's wife passed away. Thereafter, they brought the dead body back home. During the course of investigation, the finger of suspicion was pointed towards the appellant who had done the job of fixing tiles in Guman Singh's house some days earlier. On getting this lead, the investigating officer arrested the accused appellant on 24.10.2010 (Ex. P/16). He was kept Baparda. The accused was put up for identification at the hands of Shankar Lal who correctly identified him to be the person who was seen coming out from the house of Guman Singh on the day of incident. On the voluntary informations provided by the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the I.O. proceeded to effect recoveries (Ex. P/49) of a gold chain with pendant and a gold ring as well as blood stained knife and the blood stained apparels of the accused from the room which he had taken on rent from Iqbal (PW-21). P/49) of a gold chain with pendant and a gold ring as well as blood stained knife and the blood stained apparels of the accused from the room which he had taken on rent from Iqbal (PW-21). The blood stained articles recovered from the place of incident, the blood stained apparels of the deceased, the blood stained articles recovered at the instance of the accused and the vaginal swabs and vaginal smear collected from the body of the deceased, were forwarded to the FSL for comparison/analysis from where, three reports (Ex. P/66, Ex. P/67 and Ex. P/68) were received. As per the report (Ex. P/66), the blood stained swab of cotton collected from the place of incident, the blood stained apparels taken off from the body of the deceased, the shirt, pant, knife recovered at the instance of the accused, all tested positive for the presence of B Group human blood. After collecting these material pieces of evidence, the I.O. proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the court of the concerned Magistrate. As the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jodhpur who framed charge against the accused for the said offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents 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 denied the same; claimed to be innocent; further stated that he had been threatened by Shankar Lal to not to state anything in presence of the Magistrate; examined two witnesses and exhibited six documents in defence. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and, thoroughly appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. 7. Shri Rajendra Choudhary, Advocate representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. It was his contention that the evidence of the star prosecution witness Shankar Lal is not reliable. Hence this appeal. 7. Shri Rajendra Choudhary, Advocate representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. It was his contention that the evidence of the star prosecution witness Shankar Lal is not reliable. The conduct of the witness in not divulging to either Guman Singh or to the I.O. on 20.10.2010 that he had seen an unknown person coming out from the house of Guman Singh in the afternoon when the incident took place, impeaches the creditworthiness of his testimony. He further urged that if the evidence of PW-21 Iqbal is seen, apparently, the accused stayed in his house only for a single day and he had no belongings whatsoever. Thus, as per Shri Choudhary, the recoveries shown to have been effected from the room allegedly rented out to the accused, are absolutely unbelievable. He thus urged that there does not exist any credible evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the accused appellant with the alleged crime. As per Shri Choudhary, these signs were bound to be prominent by visible and as a consequence, Shankar Lal could not have missed to notice the same and would have immediately spoken out to the family members and the I.O. that such a man with suspicious features had been seen coming out of the house of the deceased. As per Shri Choudhary, failure of Shankar Lal to speak out immediately demolishes his evidentiary worth and also makes the recoveries redundant. Shri Choudhary further urged that the FSL reports are not reliable and rather inadmissible in evidence because the Maalkhana articles were forwarded to the FSL after delay of nearly one month and ten days. He urged that the prosecution has alleged that the accused was having numerous injuries on his face, etc. (which were allegedly received in the struggle made by the deceased and that his clothes were stained with blood). Shri Choudhary further submitted that the investigating officer did not associate independent motbirs of the locality in the seizures effected from the room allegedly rented out to the accused appellant. Furthermore, the motbir witness Kapil (PW-20) has given contradictory evidence regarding the date on which, the recoveries were effected. Shri Choudhary further submitted that the investigating officer did not associate independent motbirs of the locality in the seizures effected from the room allegedly rented out to the accused appellant. Furthermore, the motbir witness Kapil (PW-20) has given contradictory evidence regarding the date on which, the recoveries were effected. Shri Rajendra Choudhary, Advocate further submitted that the motbir witness Kapil admitted in his cross-examination that the articles recovered by the police from the room of the accused were sealed after the same had been brought back to the police station. He thus urged that the link evidence is broken and the recoveries become redundant. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary craved reversal of the impugned judgment and sought acquittal for the appellant. 8. Per contra, Shri Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Rajasthan vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the prosecution has proved the following facts beyond all manner of doubt and hence, the chain of circumstances pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused is well established: (i) that the accused was seen coming out of the house of the deceased on the day of incident in the afternoon; (ii) that the witness Shankar Lal (PW-4), who had no animosity whatsoever with the appellant, gave a statement to the I.O. on 21.10.2010 that he had seen an unknown man coming out of the house of the deceased; (iii) that the I.O. received evidence to the effect that the accused had done the job of fixing tiles in the house of Guman Singh a few days before the incident upon which, the finger of suspicion pointed towards the accused. The accused was arrested on 24.10.2010 vide arrest memo (Ex. P/16) and was subjected to medical examination at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur at the hands of Dr. Sudhir Kashyap (PW-11), who noticed numerous abrasions, etc. on the face of the accused (MLR-Ex. P/20). The accused was arrested on 24.10.2010 vide arrest memo (Ex. P/16) and was subjected to medical examination at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur at the hands of Dr. Sudhir Kashyap (PW-11), who noticed numerous abrasions, etc. on the face of the accused (MLR-Ex. P/20). As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the size of the abrasions was not so big that they would be prominently visible to anyone looking casually; (iv) that the accused was kept Baparda after his arrest and subjected to test identification at the hands of Shankar Lal who correctly identified the accused as the person who was seen coming out of the house of Guman Singh; (v) that the clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident and the weapon i.e. knife used to stab the deceased were recovered in furtherance of the voluntary information provided by the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The blood stained apparel collected from the body of the deceased and the blood lifted in a cotton swab from the place of incident and the incriminating articles recovered at the instance of the accused were forwarded to the FSL from where, a report (Ex. P/66) was received establishing the presence of B Group human blood on all these articles. (vi) that the ornaments of the deceased viz. a gold chain and a gold ring were also recovered in furtherance of the voluntary information provided by the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Guman Singh, the husband of the deceased, identified these articles to be of his wife. 9. Thus, as per Shri Joshi, the prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances pointing unmistakably towards the guilt of the accused. As per him, the impugned judgment is based on a thorough and apropos appreciation of evidence available on record and does not warrant any interference whatsoever by this Court. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 11. It is an admitted position that till the time of lodging of the FIR, the case was of blind murder. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 11. It is an admitted position that till the time of lodging of the FIR, the case was of blind murder. It is also an admitted position that the accused, informant Guman Singh and the witness Shankar Lal had no prior connection with each other so that these witnesses could be inspired to implicate the accused falsely in this case. 12. We now propose to discuss in brief the evidence available on record. 13. PW-19 Mangilal stated in his evidence that he is involved in construction jobs. Guman Singh resident of Chandna Bhakhar, approached him and requested him to fix tiles in his house. The witness claimed that he knew the accused Yogendra Kumar and engaged him to do this job. Guman Singh came to his house and Yogendra Kumar was sent with him to affix the tiles. Later on, Guman Singh talked to the witness and asked about the payment to be made to Yogendra Kumar on which, the witness advised that the payment be made as per routine. No significant cross-examination was made from this witness other than a vague question regarding the exact date on which he asked Yogendra Kumar to do the work at the house of Guman Singh. Upon thorough appreciation of evidence of this witness, who is an independent person not connected with the accused or Guman Singh in any manner, we are duly satisfied that the fact regarding the accused Yogendra Kumar having been engaged to fix tiles in the house of Guman Singh has duly been established from his testimony. 14. Guman Singh, who was examined as PW-5, categorically stated that the work of fixing tiles in his house was undertaken on 15.10.2010 and 16.10.2010. Mangilal Contractor sent two boys who did this job. After the job was over, he gave the labour charges to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- to the two labourers. A perusal of the site inspection plan (Ex. P/7) indicates that fresh tiles had been fixed in the house of Guman Singh which was under the process of completion. 15. Mangilal Contractor sent two boys who did this job. After the job was over, he gave the labour charges to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- to the two labourers. A perusal of the site inspection plan (Ex. P/7) indicates that fresh tiles had been fixed in the house of Guman Singh which was under the process of completion. 15. Thus, it clearly appears to us that during the period of two days in which, the accused fixed the tiles in the house of Guman Singh, he developed a motive of looting the valuables. Manifestly, Guman Singh was a Government Servant and was having two small sons (aged two & half years and one year & three months. The accused, while working in the house, would definitely have gained knowledge that after Guman Singh went left for his job, the lady would be alone at the house with the two small children. Taking advantage of this position and having become familiar with the deceased, he appears to have gained unhindered access to the house. 16. As per the evidence of Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW-6), who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased and issued the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), numerous abrasions were visible on the face, chin, lips, nose and hands of the deceased. The fatal sharp weapon injury caused to her was a cut wound admeasuring 9 X 1.8 cms. deep till wind pipe which severed the skin, fascia, muscles, jugular vein, carotid arteries and trachea. In addition thereto, there were few more punctured and cut wounds on different parts of the body. The location and the nature of these injuries clearly indicates that the assailant, firstly gagged the mouth of the deceased and then stabbed her with a sharp weapon. Manifestly, as the mouth of the deceased had been gagged, she would not be in a position to raise a hue and cry. The numerous abrasions noticed by the doctors on the hands of the deceased, give a clear indication that she struggled a lot before, the assailant managed to kill her. Thus, the contention of Shri Choudhary that nobody heard the noise coming out from the house of the deceased or that Shankar Lal would definitely have heard such cries if he had actually seen the assailant coming out of the house of Guman Singh, is totally untenable. Thus, the contention of Shri Choudhary that nobody heard the noise coming out from the house of the deceased or that Shankar Lal would definitely have heard such cries if he had actually seen the assailant coming out of the house of Guman Singh, is totally untenable. As the mouth of the deceased had been gagged, there was no possibility of her raising a hue and cry. 17. Shankar Lal (PW-4) is the star witness of the prosecution. He is simply a neighbour of Guman Singh and has no animus against the accused. He categorically stated that he does the job of tailoring at his house which is located two plots down from the house of Guman Singh. The witness stated that he had gone to the market and came back at about 01.00-02.00 pm. He suddenly looked at the house of Guman Singh and saw an unknown man coming out who passed by him and went away. The witness estimated the age of the unknown man to be of 25-27 years. The witness then, heard the cries coming out from the house of Guman Singh. The females of the neighborhood collected there on which, the witness also went there and saw Guman Singh's wife lying down in a bleeding condition. He took the lady to the MDM Hospital with Bhairu Singh. Thereafter, the relatives arrived. The witness categorically stated that he did not see anyone other than the unknown man coming out of the house of Guman Singh on the fateful day. The witness further stated that he identified the said unknown man in the test identification parade held at the Central Jail, Jodhpur in presence of a Magistrate and that the accused present in the Court was the same man. The evidence of this witness has been questioned and is sought to be impeached by the appellant's counsel principally on the ground that he did not divulge to the police or to Guman Singh on the very day of the incident that he had seen an unknown man coming out of the house. It was also alleged that the witness did not state that he saw the blood stained clothes on the unknown man or the injuries on his face and thus, the defence counsel's contention was that the identification proceedings were fabricated. It was also alleged that the witness did not state that he saw the blood stained clothes on the unknown man or the injuries on his face and thus, the defence counsel's contention was that the identification proceedings were fabricated. In this regard, we are of the firm opinion that the witness who is simply a neighbour of Guman Singh, did the job of a good samaritan by taking the victim to the hospital. It would thus too much to expect from him that he would approach the police on his own to divulge that he had seen the unknown man coming out from the house of the victim on the fateful day. The painful scenes, which would prevail at the house of Guman Singh after the dead body of his wife, a mother of two small children, had been brought back from the hospital, can very well be imagined. Thus, to expect a neighbour to intrude into the grief of the family members at that point of time for disclosing this fact would be very unreasonable. The I.O. too must have become busy in preparing various documents, etc. necessary for carrying out the steps of investigation and thus, the non-disclosure on the very same day of this happening by Shri Shankar Lal could be of much significance more so when no question was put to Shankar Lal in his cross-examination as to why, he did not state this fact to Guman Singh or the investigating officer on the very day of incident. Admittedly, Shankar Lal had no bone to grind against the appellant who was totally an unknown man. Shankar Lal's statement was recorded by the I.O. on 21.10.2010 and thereafter Shankar Lal identified the appellant correctly during the test identification proceeding carried out at the Central Jail in presence of the Magistrate Smt. Rekha Sharma (PW-17). These facts are sufficient to convince us that the identification of the accused appellant by Shankar Lal in the test identification proceedings and in the court is convincing and clinching and the evidence of Shankar Lal is fully reliable on the aspect spoken by him. These facts are sufficient to convince us that the identification of the accused appellant by Shankar Lal in the test identification proceedings and in the court is convincing and clinching and the evidence of Shankar Lal is fully reliable on the aspect spoken by him. The contention of Shri Choudhary that Shankar Lal did not state that the unknown man who he saw coming out from the house of Guman Singh and was having his clothes stained in blood or that he was having any visible injury marks on his face and thus, the evidence of Shankar Lal should be discarded, is not palpable. Apparently, the assailant would be in a hurry to leave the place of incident and thus, in the fleeting moments during which, Shankar Lal saw him, it is quite possible that he might have missed to notice these marks. Furthermore, if at all, the defence was desirous of proving that the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased were prominent so that they could be missed by Shankar Lal, then the extent of these blood stains should have been elaborated in the statement of I.O. However, no such attempt was made by the defence. 18. We are fully satisfied that the prosecution has proved it beyond all manner of doubt that the accused worked in the house of the deceased a few days before the incident and thus, the unhindered access of the accused into the house on the fateful day is well explained. In addition to the identification of the accused by Shankar Lal as the person who was seen coming out from the house of Guman Singh, the investigating officer Shri R.P. Diwakar (PW-24) recorded the voluntary informations of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/55, Ex. P/56 and Ex. P/57) in furtherance whereof, he proceeded to recover the blood stained pant, shirt, knife, a gold chain and a ring from the room which Yogendra had rented from Iqbal (PW-21). It is clearly mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex. P/49) that the accused opened the lock of the room, went inside, removed a Nutan Stove under which, a cardboard was lying, from which these articles were taken out and handed over to the I.O. by the accused. The panch witness Kapil (PW-20) attested these proceedings in his examination-in-chief. It is clearly mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex. P/49) that the accused opened the lock of the room, went inside, removed a Nutan Stove under which, a cardboard was lying, from which these articles were taken out and handed over to the I.O. by the accused. The panch witness Kapil (PW-20) attested these proceedings in his examination-in-chief. Though, it is true that in his cross-examination, the witness faltered about the date of the recovery and stated that the recovery was effected on 10th of the month but, we feel that this variance can be attributed to the fact that the evidence of this witness was recorded after more than two and half years of the occurrence. On carefully examining the testimony of I.O. Rajendra Prasad Diwakar (PW-24), we feel that he has given clinching and full-proof evidence regarding the steps of investigation, the voluntary informations provided by the accused to him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recoveries effected in furtherance thereof and regarding the identification of the accused by the witness Shankar Lal. Nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of the I.O. which can impeach his testimony. Manifestly, the I.O. had no animosity with the accused so that he would go beyond metes and bounds so as to falsely implicate him in the case. The accused is a resident of Kuchaman whereas the incident took place at Jodhpur and thus, there was no reason as to why the I.O. would indulge in an exercise of falsely implicating the accused for the murder of Smt. Manju. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances narrated above establishing by clinching evidence that the accused was seen coming out from the house of the deceased on the fateful day; that he received injuries on his face in the same incident which were in all probability, caused in the struggle put up by the victim; that he got recovered his own blood stained clothes, weapon of offence, the ornaments of the deceased which were identified by her husband in his evidence. These recoveries were made soon after the incident. 19. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. other than offering a bald denial, the accused did not state anything to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. These recoveries were made soon after the incident. 19. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. other than offering a bald denial, the accused did not state anything to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The two defence witnesses Shyojiram (DW-1) and Hanuman Ram (DW-2) being the father and father-in-law respectively of the accused, made an attempt to establish his presence in the village Sursinghpura, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur so as to prove his alibi on the date of incident. However, on going through their evidence and the statement of the accused himself recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the testimony of the defence witnesses is absolutely cooked up as the accused himself never took such a plea of alibi in his statement. Thus, the theory of alibi taken up by the defence is fit to be discarded. 20. Regarding the contention of Shri Choudhary that there is a defect in sealing of the articles by the I.O., we are of the view that a mere deviation regarding the date of seizure elicited in the cross-examination, which was conducted from the witness Kapil (PW-20) after more than two and half years of the incident, cannot impeach the credibility of the seizure of documents which have been duly proved by the investigating officer Rajendra Prasad Diwakar. The possibility of Kapil, the motbir witness, having forgotten the dates in the intervening period of more than two and half years since the incident, is quite possible. Thus, precedence has to be given to the evidence of investigating officer by ignoring the minor variations appearing in the evidence of Kapil while considering the proof provided by the prosecution regarding sealing and safe keeping of the incriminating articles from the time of seizure till they reached the FSL. 21. Shri Rajendra Choudhary cited the following judgments in support of his contentions which we proceed to discuss briefly: (i) Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2012, SC 3157 (ii) Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. 21. Shri Rajendra Choudhary cited the following judgments in support of his contentions which we proceed to discuss briefly: (i) Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2012, SC 3157 (ii) Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 (iii) Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 865 (iv) Tarseem Kumar vs. The Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2585 (v) Ran Singh Kumhar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2019(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 635, and (vi) The State of Rajasthan vs. Motia & Ors, reported in (1955) AIR (Raj.) 82, and (vii) Balkar Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in 1990 Cri.L.J. 77 22. In the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the aspect of qualities of sterling witnesses. Finding the evidence of the prosecutrix of the case at variance with the version given in the complaint and the lack of injuries on her private parts, the Supreme Court held her testimony to be not of sterling worth. 23. In the case at hand, none of these circumstances exist. Thus, the said judgment is of no help or support to the accused. 24. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court laid down the rules of appreciating circumstantial evidence and held that 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. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such so as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The chain of evidence must be complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 25. On testing the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the above principles, we find that the prosecution has unquestionably, proved the complete chain of circumstances which invariably and unfailingly points towards the guilt of the accused and does not leave any reasonable ground to doubt the credibility thereof. Thus, the said judgment is also of no help and support to the accused. 26. Thus, the said judgment is also of no help and support to the accused. 26. In the case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the major contradictions in the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution and overturned the conviction of the accused recorded by the courts below. In the present case, as we have already discussed above, no contradictions, infirmities and weakness exist in the prosecution case, and that the chain of circumstances has firmly been proved by the prosecution pointing conclusively towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, the above judgment is also of no avail to the accused. 27. Similar was the situation in the case of Tarseem Kumar (supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, considered the testimony of the witness of last seen being close relative of the victim to be unworthy of credence. Likewise, the evidence of extra-judicial confession made before a stock witness was discarded and so was the evidence of recoveries. Again, in view of the discussion made above, the facts of this case also do not come to the aid of the accused as the same are distinguishable. 28. In the case of Ran Singh Kumhar (supra), this Court discarded the testimony of the two witnesses of last seen on the ground that they did not raise a hue and cry despite the fact that the accused was seen going towards the house of the accused armed with an axe and then was seen coming out from inside empty handed. In those peculiar facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the witnesses claimed that they heard the cries of the deceased from her house soon after the accused went therein, the Court discarded the evidence of these two witnesses as being unreliable. The situation in the present case is totally different and thus, the ratio of the said judgment also does not help the accused in any manner. 29. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Motia & Ors. (supra), this Court discarded the evidence of recoveries and held that the complete link of chain of circumstances was snapped. Accordingly, finding the defects in the prosecution evidence to be fatal, the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC. As discussed above, in the present case, no such defects exist. 30. (supra), this Court discarded the evidence of recoveries and held that the complete link of chain of circumstances was snapped. Accordingly, finding the defects in the prosecution evidence to be fatal, the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC. As discussed above, in the present case, no such defects exist. 30. In the case of Balkar Singh (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court discarded the evidentiary worth of the recovered articles and the consequent identification thereof by the witnesses on the ground that they were not sealed. In the present case, no such circumstance exist. Thus, the above judgment is also of no avail to the accused. 31. As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has proved its case based on circumstantial evidence against the accused by leading unimpeachable, creditworthy clinching evidence. All the links in the chain of circumstances required to establish the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, have been proved beyond all manner of doubt. The same lead to the only possible conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused and are thoroughly in consistent with his innocence. It is thus our firm view that the learned trial court, appreciated the evidence in an absolutely apropos manner and arrived at the only just and logic conclusion i.e. guilt of the accused. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or shortcoming whatsoever warranting interference. 32. Hence, we affirm the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 (NCV No. 08/2016). The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 33. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.