JUDGMENT : Shekhar B. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 9, 2017 in S.C. No. 58 of 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, A & N Islands at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as 'ASJ') found the appellant Jagadish Mazumder guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 380 and 449 of the IPC and accordingly sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further year. Jagadish Mazumder was also sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment under section 449 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed and, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for further six months. Jagadish Mazumder was also convicted under Section 380 of the IPC and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed and, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for further 2 years. 3. In short, the facts leading to the above convictions are that the complainant, Manoj Kumar Sarkar, stated that he is a resident of VIP Street, Rangat and is working as an LIC agent. His father, Mahendranath Sarkar (the victim/deceased), used to reside alone in his own house at Ulla Basti, Nimbutala. The complainant further stated that he has three brothers and two sisters and that his mother resides with his elder brother, Ashim Sarkar, at Junglighat, Port Blair, who is working as a Junior Engineer in APWD Department. The complainant further stated that on July 12, 2012, at about 8:00 A.M., a villager named Subal Halder of Ulla Basti, Nimbutala called and informed him that his father was sitting on a chair and the front door was closed from inside. Subal Halder further informed him that he had called out to his father time and again but his father had not responded to his call. The complainant, Manoj Kumar, also stated that he along with a few villagers went to his father's house and saw that the front door of the house was closed from inside. Subal Halder further informed him that he had called out to his father time and again but his father had not responded to his call. The complainant, Manoj Kumar, also stated that he along with a few villagers went to his father's house and saw that the front door of the house was closed from inside. He thereafter telephoned the Pradhan of the Nimbutala Panchayat, Shri Manoj Biswas, who came to the spot along with police personnel. Thereafter, at about 9:00 A.M., they all entered the house from the back door, which was unbolted. On going there, they found that there were several deep-cut injuries on the neck and the body of the deceased and blood was oozing profusely. He further stated that the floor of the hall room of the house was stained with blood. On the basis of the said fard bayan of Manoj Kumar Sarkar, Rangat P.S. Case No. 100 of 2012 dated 12.07.2012 for offences under Sections 449/302/380 of IPC was registered and Dilip Kumar Seal, Sub Inspector of Police, was entrusted to take up the investigation. 4. During the investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O.'), prepared a site plan with index, took photographs of the P.O., recovered the offending weapon, performed an inquest examination of the dead body, recorded the statement of the witnesses, and also examined the accused person, arrested the accused person, interrogated him and recorded his statement in the presence of the witnesses, took steps for postmortem examination of the dead body, collected postmortem examination report, took steps for recording statement of the witnesses u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., forwarded the accused person to the Ld. Court, seized articles, sent the seized alamats to CFSL, Kolkata for examination report, on completion of the examination collected the CFSL examination report and then on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused person under Sections 302/380/449 of IPC. The bail prayer of the accused person was rejected and he ultimately faced the custody trial. 5. Court, seized articles, sent the seized alamats to CFSL, Kolkata for examination report, on completion of the examination collected the CFSL examination report and then on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused person under Sections 302/380/449 of IPC. The bail prayer of the accused person was rejected and he ultimately faced the custody trial. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 35 witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar Sarkar, S.K. Sarkar, Manoj Biswas, Amar Samaddar, Ravi Mondal, Subinoy Sarkar, Anulekha Halder, Sushanto Mallick, Dioapl Mondal, Subal Halder, Sachin Halder, Sandhya Mistry, Madhvi Mondal, Bhopal Bairagi, Sulekha Das, P. Pandi, Gourango Mistry, Goutam Mistry, Bishnu Pada Mistry, Nageshwar Rao, Mohammed Ismail, P.L. Pitchaiah, Lalita Devi, Dr. M. Joy, Mahesh Kumar, Raj Kapoor, R. Elango, Khokan Dutta, Biju, Mohan Rao, Upendra Mourya, T.R. Ashok Kumar, Jagdish Prasad, M.T. Abdul Salam and Dilip Kumar Seal (PW-1 to PW-35). Further, cross examinations were done by the accused of the above witnesses. A series of documents were produced, such as fardbeyan, inquest report, postmortem examination report, panchanama, Supurdginama, labels pasted on the alamats, FIR, site plan with index, medical examination reports, CFSL reports etc. and were marked as Ext-1 to Ext-41. The alamats, such as wearing apparel of the victim, wearing apparel of accused, offending weapon, controlled earth, bloodstained earth, etc. were produced and marked as Mat. Exhibit-I to Mat. Ext-XVI. 6. At the very outset, I would like to record the deposition of all the 35 witnesses brought forward by the prosecution: a. Manoj Kumar Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-1') is the son of the deceased. He is an LIC agent and has three brothers and two sisters. During the period, his mother resided with his elder brothers, Subinay Sarkar and Ashim Sarkar, and his father, Mahendranath Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), resided alone at their parental house at Nimbutala. As per the evidence of this witness, on 12.07.2012, at about 8.00 AM, Subay Haldar, a villager called him from Gullapara village of Nimbutala and informed him that no sound was coming from inside the house and his father was not responding to their calls. Hearing this, Manoj Kumar asked Subay to visit the site while he was on his way to Gullapara. Thereafter, he came to the house with other villagers and upon calling his father there was no response from the latter. Hearing this, Manoj Kumar asked Subay to visit the site while he was on his way to Gullapara. Thereafter, he came to the house with other villagers and upon calling his father there was no response from the latter. Then he called the Pradhan of Nimbutala village, Manoj Biswas, who came there within half an hour along with the police force. As per the evidence of this witness, the front door of the house was closed from inside, the back door was also closed but not bolted. They entered the house from the back door. They found that no source of light was turned on and it was pitch dark in the house. Meanwhile, they found his father sitting on a plastic chair under the rotating ceiling fan and the TV was on AV mode. Thereafter, they switched the lights on to get a clear picture of the scenario. He saw that there was a deep cut injury on his head along with cut marks on his throat and other parts of the body and the body was totally blood-stained. The blood oozed out of the body, spilt over the chair, making its way down to the floor. When he touched his father, he presumed him to be dead. As per evidence of this witness, his father used to wear a gold chain, finger ring and gold toothpick, but he did not find those articles on him. Thereafter, the people present there took him outside the room. He further stated that the Police recovered one blood stained dao from the back side of the house and also recovered his father's handbag along with some important documents, such as ration card, identity card, etc. from the backside of the house. He further stated that he enquired about the matter and the villagers told them that they had not seen his father for the last 3 days. Police recorded his statement. As per evidence of this witness, he was subsequently informed that one Jagadish Mazumder, who used to reside in the house of Bishnu Pada Mistry, killed his father. He has also stated in cross-examination that he had last visited his father two years ago, though the fact remains that he had been residing in the vicinity of his father. As per evidence of this witness, he was subsequently informed that one Jagadish Mazumder, who used to reside in the house of Bishnu Pada Mistry, killed his father. He has also stated in cross-examination that he had last visited his father two years ago, though the fact remains that he had been residing in the vicinity of his father. b. S.K. Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-2') happens to be the younger brother of the deceased and he resided alone in his own house at Nimbutala. He reached the spot at around 10.00 AM after he was informed about the incident. Further, he found that prior to his arrival, the police were present at the spot. The local Tehsildar questioned him about his relationship with the deceased and having disclosed the same, he was allowed to enter the room where the deceased was brutally murdered. He, in his cross examination, stated that he had last visited the house of the deceased 7-8 months ago. c. Manoj Biswas (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-3') is the Pradhan of Ward No. III, Gram Panchayat, Nimbutala and on 12.07.2012 he was at Nimbutala chowk at 8.30 AM. At that time, one Manoj Sarkar (PW-1) telephoned him and informed him that his father resided alone at his house at Nimbutala and that the door of the house was closed from inside. Thereafter, he called Rangat P.S. and informed the SHO about the information received by him and requested him to go to the spot along with the police force. Thereafter, he reached the spot along with the police force. As per evidence of that witness, he reached the spot at about 9.00 AM and found that some persons had gathered there and the youngest son, Manoj Sarkar, was also present. As the front door was closed from inside, they went through the back door of the house and found that the door was not bolted from inside. Accordingly, they opened the door and went inside along with Manoj Sarkar, the police and some other persons. At that time there was darkness in the room, but the fan and TV were running. Accordingly, they opened the door and went inside along with Manoj Sarkar, the police and some other persons. At that time there was darkness in the room, but the fan and TV were running. Later, they switched on the light of the drawing room and found that the deceased was sitting on a chair and there were injuries on his forehead and backside of the head, throat and hand of his body and he was in a pool of blood. The floor, bed sheet, chair and wearing apparels of the deceased i.e. sando banyan and lungi were also stained with blood. The blood had dried up by now. Thereafter, he requested the SHO to arrive at the crime scene. The SHO arrived at the spot and Manoj Sarkar told the police that it was a murder case, as per his opinion, and that the deceased was murdered two days ago. He further stated that the deceased used to visit the house of the accused and also stated that the deceased resided there alone. Thereafter, the police initiated the investigation and he left the place after identifying the deceased person. As per further evidence of this witness, on 22.07.2012, the SHO called him to the police station and told him that Jagdish (the appellant) is in custody and he wants to give a statement. Thereafter, he and Amar Samaddar of Panchayat Samiti went to the P.S. Rangat and entered the SHO's room. Jagdish was subsequently called there and Jagdish gave a statement in their presence. The accused then took them to a place called Urlapara where from one bloodstained pant and lungi was recovered and the police seized both the articles under the proper seizure list. As per evidence of this witness, on the next day, he along with police and Jagadish Mazumder (accused) and one Amar Samaddar reached Port Blair, where the accused identified one shop and also identified an employee of that shop by stating that he had sold the gold ring to that employee. Thereafter, the police called the daughter of the deceased, namely, Sulekha Das and handed over the gold ring to her, which she identified as the ring of her father. The police seized the same under proper seizure list. Thereafter, the police called the daughter of the deceased, namely, Sulekha Das and handed over the gold ring to her, which she identified as the ring of her father. The police seized the same under proper seizure list. d. Amar Samaddar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-4') is a Samiti Member of Nimbutala and he has stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, at about 8.00-8.30 AM, he was informed that Manoj Sarkar's father was murdered by someone and, accordingly, he reached the spot at Ulla Basti. He saw that there was a small crowd outside the deceased's home and the front door of the house was closed from inside. After the police arrived, (PW-4), Sushanto Mallick, Tehsildar and police persons entered to the room from the back door that was unlocked and found that the TV and fan were in running condition and also found that the deceased was seated on a chair. He further stated that, at that time, the light was off and they switched on the light and found some grievous injuries on the back side of the body, throat, neck, forehead and other parts of the body of the deceased. Thereafter, the police made an inquiry over the body, and he signed on the inquiry report. As per evidence of this witness, police recovered the bloodstained dao from the backside of the house in his presence. As per evidence of this witness, police recovered one ladies' bag and one gents' bag from the back side of the house along with some documents like senior citizen card, one krishi card, two passbooks of SBI and Cooperative Bank from one bag and from another bag one Fair and Lovely cream and some papers and other items. Police seized those articles under proper seizure list. It is found from the evidence of PW-4 that on 22.07.2012, the police called the said witness and Manoj Biswas at P.S. Rangat and the accused person was also called in their presence. The said accused person stated to the police that he would point out the place where he kept his wearing apparels in a concealed manner. The police then recorded his statement in the presence of the witnesses and obtained their signatures on the recorded statement. The said accused person stated to the police that he would point out the place where he kept his wearing apparels in a concealed manner. The police then recorded his statement in the presence of the witnesses and obtained their signatures on the recorded statement. According to the evidence of this witness, he along with police, another witness, Amar Samaddar, and accused person went to Port Blair and the accused person pointed out the shop room and also identified the employee of that shop room to whom he sold the gold ring. It is found from the evidence of PW-4 that the police seized the said gold ring by preparing seizure list. e. Ravi Mondal (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-5') has stated that on 12.07.2012, at about 8.00 AM, he was going to his duty along with his wife, and at that point of time, he received a phone call from his younger brother-in-law on his mobile phone and came to know that his father-in-law was not opening the door, and subsequently, he reached the spot along with his wife. After reaching the place of occurrence, he found some villagers gathered there. His brother-in-law was also present along with the Panchayat Pradhan. As per evidence of this witness, the front door of the house was closed from inside and the back door was also closed, but not bolted from inside. Along with his brother-in-law, local villagers and police, he entered the house through the back door and they found that the TV and electric fan were switched on and there was darkness inside the room. Thereafter, they switched on the light and found that his father-in-law was sitting in a red-coloured chair, full of blood, and the body was in dry condition. As per evidence of this witness, he also saw some grievous injuries on the body of the deceased and the forehead, neck and backside of his head. From the evidence of this witness, it is also revealed that police shifted the dead body at CHC, Rangat where postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 13.07.2013. He further stated that the police seized the wearing apparels of the deceased by preparing proper seizure list. As per his evidence, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the elder brother-in-law of this witness. He further stated that the police seized the wearing apparels of the deceased by preparing proper seizure list. As per his evidence, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the elder brother-in-law of this witness. f. Subnay Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-6') has stated that they are three brothers and two sisters and he was posted at APWD, Prothrapur and, at the relevant date, he was at Garacharma when he received a phone call from his brother, Manoj, who informed him that his father was murdered by somebody and, subsequently, he reached the P.O at 4.30 PM and came to know that the dead body had been shifted to CHC Rangat for postmortem examination. On the very next date, postmortem examination was conducted and, after postmortem examination, the body was handed over to his elder brother. g. Anulekha Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-7') stated that she is engaged in selling milk and that the deceased was known to her as she used to sell milk to him. As per her evidence, on 11.07.2012, at about 7.00 AM, she went to the house of the deceased for giving milk. She found that he was sitting in a chair in front of the TV of his room and the front side door of the house was bolted from the inside. So, she entered the house through the back door and kept the milk on the table. She further stated that she kept the milk on the table inside the room as the deceased had told her previously not to disturb him at the time of supplying milk. She further stated that on 12.07.2012, she once again went to the home for supplying milk and she felt that something was wrong when she saw the deceased in the same condition as on the previous day. She called out to him, saying "Dada Dada", but did not get any reply from the deceased. It is also stated by this witness that thereafter, she went back to her house and reported the incident to Sachin Halder, Subash Halder and Tapas and expressed doubt about the condition of the deceased. Subsequently, she came to know that Mahendranath Sarkar was murdered. As per her further evidence, Jagadish Mazumder (accused person) was known to her and he used to visit the house of Mahendranath Sarkar occasionally. Subsequently, she came to know that Mahendranath Sarkar was murdered. As per her further evidence, Jagadish Mazumder (accused person) was known to her and he used to visit the house of Mahendranath Sarkar occasionally. As per evidence of this witness, Jagadish Mazumder was residing his relatives' house for last 2-3 months at Ulla Basti, Nimbutala. This witness identified the accused person at the time of giving evidence. h. Sushanto Mallick (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-8') has stated in his evidence that he has been residing at Nimbutala junction and has been working in the postal department. When he came to Nimbutala bazaar on 12.07.2012, at about 11.00 AM, he heard that Mahendranath Sarkar had died in his residence at Ulla Basti. Thereafter, the witness went to that spot and found that police personnel and Tehsildar were present there. From the evidence of PW-8, it is revealed that after sometime, the Tehsildar along with police, Amar Samaddar, S.K. Sarkar and this witness went inside the house through the back door and they saw Mahendranath Sarkar sitting on a red-coloured chair. His body was fully bloodstained and the blood had dried up. As per his evidence, they also noticed grievous injuries on his forehead, neck and back side of the head. It is also revealed from his evidence that thereafter, the Tehsildar performed the inquiry examination and prepared a report where he signed. As per his evidence, police seized a bloodstained carpet, controlled carpet, two bed sheets, chair etc. This witness proved his signatures on the wrapper of the seized articles. It is also revealed from the evidence of PW-8 that the police recovered one ladies' bag and one gents' bag from the back side of the house, where some documents, such as Senior citizen card, krishi card, two passbooks of SBI and Cooperative Bank, were lying and the police seized the same and he signed on the seizure list. i. Dipal Mondal (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-9') has stated in his evidence that he runs a betel nut shop in front of the helicopter ground of Nimbutala and on 12.07.2012, he heard that Mahendranath Sarkar of Ulla Basti had died. As per his evidence, on the subsequent day, Manoj Sarkar, son of Mahendranath Sarkar (deceased), called him to the hospital for carrying the dead body of the deceased for cremation and, accordingly, he went to the hospital at 10.30 AM. As per his evidence, on the subsequent day, Manoj Sarkar, son of Mahendranath Sarkar (deceased), called him to the hospital for carrying the dead body of the deceased for cremation and, accordingly, he went to the hospital at 10.30 AM. It is also stated by this witness that the doctor handed over the wearing apparels of the deceased to the police who seized the same by preparing seizure list. j. Subal Halder (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-10'), who is a resident of Nimbutala and a carpenter by profession, has stated that on 12.07.2012, at about 7.30 AM, one Subash Sarkar, Sachin Halder and Tapas Roy came to him and stated that Mahendranath Sarkar was not opening his door and that Sachin Halder's wife had informed them of the same. Thereafter, he telephoned and reported the said incident to Manoj Sarkar, son of the deceased, and then Manoj Sarkar and Pradhan Manoj Biswas came to the P.O. As per evidence of this witness, they entered Mahendranath Sarkar's room and saw him sitting on a chair. They also found sharp cut injuries on the head and neck. As per evidence of this witness, the floor and carpet of the room were stained with blood. k. Sachin Halder (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-11'), who is the husband of Anulekha Halder (PW-7), has stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, at about 7.00 AM, when he was working outside his house, his wife, who was coming back home from the house of Mahendranath Sarkar, informed him that she had seen the deceased sitting on a chair in the same condition like the previous day. As per his evidence, Tapas Roy, Subash Sarkar and he went to that place and saw that the front door of that house was bolted from inside and then they raised an alarm. However, they did not get any response and then they went to the Subhal Halder's house to request him to intimate the said incident to the deceased's son. It is found from his evidence that, thereafter, Manoj Sarkar (son of deceased), Manoj Biswas, Pradhan of locality, and police arrived at the spot and they together entered the house through the back door and found the deceased in a sitting condition on a chair and also noticed several marks of injury on his body. It is found from his evidence that, thereafter, Manoj Sarkar (son of deceased), Manoj Biswas, Pradhan of locality, and police arrived at the spot and they together entered the house through the back door and found the deceased in a sitting condition on a chair and also noticed several marks of injury on his body. l. Smt. Sandhya Mistry (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-12'), who is a resident of Ulla Basti, Nimbutala, has stated in her evidence that Jagadish Mazumder is known to her and said Jagadish Mazumder is the son-in-law of the elder brother of her husband. As per her evidence, Jagadish Mazumder came to their house two months prior to the incident. She stated that the accused had not been in her house from two days prior to the discovery of the murder. As per the evidence of this witness, she heard that Mahendranath Sarkar was murdered by Jagadish Mazumder. This witness at the time of giving evidence identified the dao. As per her evidence, Jagadish Mazumder was on visiting terms with Mahendranath Sarkar. m. Smt. Madhavi Mondal (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-13'), in her evidence, stated that Jagadish Mazumder is her brother-in-law and she identified the accused person. As per evidence of this witness, on 10.07.2012, the accused person wanted money from her on the pretext of his business but she refused to pay the money. It is her evidence that Jagadish Mazumder used to go to the house of Mahendranath Sarkar regularly and the latter used to reside alone in his house. As per evidence of this witness, on 10.07.2012, one dao of her house was found missing. It is her evidence that on the same day the accused came to their house at 9.00 PM and directly went to his room and thereafter this witness called Jagadish Mazumder for dinner. At the time of eating dinner, she felt that the accused was under tension and had not consumed his food properly. This witness has been cross examined by the defence side. In the cross examination, it is found that it was a daily ritual of this witness to keep the dao under her baby's pillow, and she noticed that the said dao was missing on the evening of 10.07.2012. This witness has been cross examined by the defence side. In the cross examination, it is found that it was a daily ritual of this witness to keep the dao under her baby's pillow, and she noticed that the said dao was missing on the evening of 10.07.2012. n. Bhopal Baigari (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-14'), in his evidence, has stated that Jagadish Mazumder was known to him and on 11.07.2012, at about 7.00 AM, Jagdish came to his house and borrowed Rs. 1,700/- to Rs. 1,800/- from him. As per his evidence, on 13.07.2012 or 14.07.2012, Jagadish Mazumder called this witness and, at that point of time, this witness asked Jagadish Mazumder about his location, but he refused to give an answer. As per his evidence, he subsequently came to know that one person of Nimbutala was murdered and police had brought Jagdish from the mainland. o. Sulekha Das (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-15') stated in her evidence that she is a Primary School teacher of Rabindra Bangla Vidyalaya, Port Blair and her paternal house is situated at Ulla Basti, Nimbutala. She stated that her father's name is late Mahendranath Sarkar and her father used to reside alone in the house and he earned his livelihood via plantations. As per evidence of this witness, she was informed by her younger brother over telephone that her father was murdered by someone on 12.07.2012. As per evidence of this witness, her father used to wear a gold chain, a gold ring and a wrist watch, but the said gold ornaments were found missing after the death of her father. According to the evidence of this witness, on 22.07.2012, she came to know that police had arrested Jagdish from Calcutta as he had murdered her father. She stated that on 23.07.2012, the police summoned her at Thangamalai Jewellery, Port Blair and she reported there. She stated that the police showed her one gold ring and she identified the same as her father's ring. As per evidence of this witness, police seized the ring under proper seizure list. This witness, on cross examination, contradicted her deposition given in examination-in-chief by stating that the shopkeeper of that jewellery shop showed her the ring, and not the police. As per evidence of this witness, police seized the ring under proper seizure list. This witness, on cross examination, contradicted her deposition given in examination-in-chief by stating that the shopkeeper of that jewellery shop showed her the ring, and not the police. p. P. Pandi (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-16') has stated in his evidence that he has been working in R.P. Thangamalai Jewellery of Aberdeen Bazar as a goldsmith. He stated that on 11.07.2012, at about 4.30 PM, the accused person came to the shop, handed over one gold ring from his finger, stated that his mother is seriously ill in the mainland, and that he was in urgent need of purchasing an air ticket. This witness identified the accused person at the time of giving evidence. As per evidence of this witness, he had weighed that ring and it weighed 5.14 grams. As per market value, they had given Rs. 7,000/- to the appellant. It is further revealed from his evidence that on 23.07.2012, at about 10.30 AM, the police came to their shop room along with the accused person, and the police asked the accused as to whom he had handed over the gold ring to, and then the accused person indicated towards him. It is also found from the evidence of PW-16 that he handed over the ring to the police who seized the same. q. Gourango Mistry (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-17') is a child witness and, after testing this witness, the trial court observed that he is competent to give rational answers to the questions. As per evidence of this witness, he is a resident of Ulla Basti, Nimbutala and a student of class XII. It is revealed from the evidence of this witness that Jagadish Mazumder is known to him as he is his cousin's husband. This witness identified Jagadish Mazumder at the time of giving evidence and also stated that, at the time of the incident, Jagadish Mazumder was residing in their house. It is also revealed from his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he heard that Mahendranath Sarkar of their village was murdered and the police seized the dao from the house of the deceased Mahendranath Sarkar. It is also revealed from his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he heard that Mahendranath Sarkar of their village was murdered and the police seized the dao from the house of the deceased Mahendranath Sarkar. r. Goutam Mistry (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-18') has stated in his evidence that he is a resident of Ulla Basti of Nimbutala and Jagadish Mazumder is known to him as the latter is his cousin's husband. He stated that Jagadish Mazumder demanded money from him for his business purpose. He further stated that he had taken the accused person to Mahendranath Sarkar's house, and they became acquainted with each other. It is also stated by this witness that he came to know that Mahendranath Sarkar had been murdered. Subsequently, he was called by P.S. Rangat where the police interrogated him and recorded his statement and then, after one or two days, the police took him along with Pradhan Manoj Biswas, Amar Samaddar and the said accused to a bush beside a culvert where the accused person brought out a black coloured polythene bag containing bloodstained check lungi and a half pant. The police seized the same by preparing proper seizure list. This witness has also given statement before the ld. Magistrate which is recorded u/s. 164 CrPC. s. Bishunupado Mistry (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-19') has stated in his evidence that Jagadish Mazumder is known to him as he is the son-in-law of his elder brother. As per evidence of this witness, his son Goutam Mistry had brought Jagadish Mazumder to their house at Ulla Basti. He further stated that Jagadish Mazumder demanded money from him for his business purpose but he refused to give him any money. He further stated that he had seen Jagadish Mazumder go to Mahendranath Sarkar's house (not on the date of the crime), who used to stay alone at his residence. This witness identified the dao. t. Nageshwar Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-20') has stated in his evidence that he has been working as Sub-Divisional Officer Personnel (SDOP) of BSNL, Port Blair and he received a letter from SHO of P.S. Rangat for giving customer details and call details of a phone number and, accordingly, he has submitted the said call details of phone number 9531842895. The evidence given by PW-20 reflects that the prosecution has collected the call details of phone number 9531842895. The evidence given by PW-20 reflects that the prosecution has collected the call details of phone number 9531842895. It is to be noted that the witness was unable to provide the subscriber details of the said BSNL phone number. u. Mohammed Ismail (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-21') was the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar at the relevant time. He stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he was posted at Rangat as Tehsildar and on that day, he performed the inquiry examination of the dead body of Mahendranath Sarkar of Ulla Basti, Nimbutala. This witness proved the inquest report which is marked as Exhibit-2. The evidence given by PW-21 proves that the inquest examination of the dead body of the deceased was performed. v. P.L. Pitchaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-22'), who is the Manager of Bharati Airtel Ltd., Port Blair, has stated in his evidence as PW-22 that on 14.07.2012, he was posted as the Manager of Bharati Airtel Ltd., Port Blair and, on that date, he received a letter from SHO of P.S. Rangat for providing the name and address of the phone call details of subscriber of Airtel SIM No. 9933249700. Accordingly, he supplied the said subscriber details. This witness also proved the said document. The evidence given by PW-22 and the document, which is marked as Ext-30, prove that the police collected the subscriber details of the phone belonging to Jagadish Mazumder. However, it is to be noted that the witness did not provide the call details of the said SIM as sought for by the police. w. Lalita Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-23') has stated in her evidence that she was working as a receptionist in the Hotel K.V.R. Residency at Babu Lane and, on 11.07.2012, Jagdish checked in their hotel at 4.10 PM and he checked out from their hotel on 12.07.2012 at 5.15 AM. As per her evidence, she maintained the register. This witness identified the accused person on the dock at the time of examination-in-chief and not before. As per her evidence, the police interrogated her and seized the copy of register. She further stated that she made the entry in the register in respect of Jagdish as Serial No. 73. x. Dr. As per her evidence, she maintained the register. This witness identified the accused person on the dock at the time of examination-in-chief and not before. As per her evidence, the police interrogated her and seized the copy of register. She further stated that she made the entry in the register in respect of Jagdish as Serial No. 73. x. Dr. M. Joy (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-24') has stated in his evidence that he is the Chief Medical Officer of CHC Rangat and, on 13.07.2012, he was posted at the same place and in the same capacity, and on that date, he performed the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mahendranath Sarkar. As per his opinion, the death occurred due to multiple sharp cut injuries in the neck and head and as a result of blood loss. According to him, the death was antemortem and homicidal in nature. This witness has also stated that he detected injuries sustained by the deceased from blows with the force of a sharp cutting weapon. y. Mahesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-25'), S.I. of police, has stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he was posted at Rangat as SHIO and, on that date, he received information over telephone regarding the murder of a senior citizen at Ulla Basti, Nimbutala. Thereafter, he deputed the duty officer to proceed to the spot and investigate the incident. As per evidence of this witness, FIR No. 100 of 2012 for offence u/s. 451/302 of IPC was chalked out against unknown person and S.I. Dilip Kumar Singh was entrusted to investigate the incident. It is also stated by this witness that after completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted the case file to him and, after proper scrutiny of the case file, he submitted charge sheet No. 205 of 2012 dated 27.08.2012 for the offences u/s. 449/302/380 of IPC against Jagadish Mazumder. z. Raj Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-26') stated in his evidence that he was working in a travel agency by the name 'Travel World' situated at Babu Line. As per evidence of this witness, the incident took place on 11.07.2012 and, on that day, at about 3.30-4.00 PM, he was at the travel agency office when one Jagadish Mazumder came to their office and asked for the price of a flight ticket to Calcutta. He informed him that the fare was Rs. 7,632/-. As per evidence of this witness, the incident took place on 11.07.2012 and, on that day, at about 3.30-4.00 PM, he was at the travel agency office when one Jagadish Mazumder came to their office and asked for the price of a flight ticket to Calcutta. He informed him that the fare was Rs. 7,632/-. He informed Jagdish that the fare for that day was high, but the fare for the next day was low and, in reply, Jagdish stated that his mother had expired due to which he had to reach Calcutta urgently. At that time, Jagdish left and, after half an hour, he returned to the office and requested him to sell the ticket for the same day at a price of Rs. 7,632/-. Accordingly, he sold him the flight ticket. After a few days, he received a call from P.S. Rangat and the SHO asked him if a person named Jagdish had bought a ticket from their office. After 15-20 days, I.O. of the case came to him along with Jagdish and he identified Jagdish. At the time of cross-examination of this witness, it is found that Deepak Govind was the owner of said Travel Agency and this witness used to work in the said travel agency. It is to be noted that the identification of Jagdish was not done in a manner required by law. Furthermore, the I.O. did not seize any documents (bill, invoice, record of sale, etc.) from the witness. aa. R. Elango (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-27') is a constable and has stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he was posted at P.S. Rangat and, on that day, he was on duty at Nimbutala junction from 8.30 AM onwards. At about 9.30 AM, he received a direction from his Police Station to go to Mahendranath Sarkar's house with Head Constable, Nova George, and Pradhan Manoj Sarkar. Thereafter, he went to Mahendranath Sarkar's house along with Head Constable, Pradhan and other villagers. He noticed that Mahendranath Sarkar had been murdered. He informed the matter to P.S. Rangat. He further stated that SHO along with police party reached at the P.O. at about 9:20 AM and recorded the statement of Manoj Kumar Sarkar. Thereafter, he went to Mahendranath Sarkar's house along with Head Constable, Pradhan and other villagers. He noticed that Mahendranath Sarkar had been murdered. He informed the matter to P.S. Rangat. He further stated that SHO along with police party reached at the P.O. at about 9:20 AM and recorded the statement of Manoj Kumar Sarkar. After recording the statement, the SHO handed over the fard bayan to him along with one letter addressed to Executive Magistrate and he brought the same to the Police Station and handed over the fard bayan to Head Moharar for lodging the FIR. He thereafter went to the Executive Magistrate and handed over the letter addressed to him. Thereafter, he returned to the police station, received the FIR and went to P.O. along with the FIR and handed over the same to SHO. bb. Khokan Dutta (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-28') has stated in his evidence that he is posted as Constable at the Police Line and, on 17.07.2012, he was posted at P.S. Rangat as Constable. On that date, Dilip Seal (I.O. of this case) received an order to go to Calcutta to arrest the accused person Jagadish Mazumder. On 17.07.2012, they left for Calcutta by an Air India Flight and then they went to Hooghly District at P.S. Dadpur. With the assistance of the police of Dadpur Police Station, they went to Belmuri Village and searched the house of the accused person and apprehended him. Subsequently, they brought him to the Dadpur P.S. and interrogated him. As per evidence of this witness, at the time of searching, they recovered one mobile phone with Airtel SIM and a Voter Identity card and these articles were seized under proper seizure list. This witness identified Jagadish Mazumder in the course of giving evidence. cc. Biju (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-29'), a head constable, stated that on 28.08.2012, at about 10.20 AM, the I.O. of this case submitted an application to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayabunder, seeking the original GD entry in respect of crime case no. 100 of 2012 of P.S. Rangat, and accordingly, as per direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he handed over the GD entry containing 13 pages to the I.O., and then the I.O. seized the said GD by preparing seizure memo. dd. 100 of 2012 of P.S. Rangat, and accordingly, as per direction of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he handed over the GD entry containing 13 pages to the I.O., and then the I.O. seized the said GD by preparing seizure memo. dd. Mohan Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-30') has stated in his evidence that he was a Police Constable and on 23.08.2012, he was posted at P.S. Rangat and, on that date, as per direction of SHO of P.S. Rangat, he brought one sealed wooden box and one sealed envelope in respect of one murder case from P.S. Rangat to Port Blair and handed over the same at PS CCS Malkhana. ee. Upendra Maurrya (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-31') has stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he was posted at P.S. Rangat in the capacity of Head Mohrar of the P.S. and, on that day, at about 10.40 AM, he received one fard bayan from PC 1701 R. Elango and, on the basis of that fard bayan, he had chalked out FIR No. 100/12 dated 12.07.2012 u/s. 451/302 of IPC against an unknown person. Thereafter, he sent that FIR to SHO through that Police constable. ff. T.R. Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-32') has stated in his evidence that he has a photo studio by the name of "Unique Studio and Video Vision" at Rangat and, on 12.07.2012, at about 9.30-10.00 AM, one Constable of P.S. Rangat came to him and told him to go to Ulla Basti to take photographs. Thereafter, he went to P.S. Rangat along with digital camera, after which he went to Ulla Basti by police vehicle to the house of the deceased. He took 21 snaps of the dead body in different angles as per direction of the police. Thereafter, he developed triplicate print of those 21 photographs and handed over the same on 14.07.2012 along with the bill to P.S. Rangat. gg. Jagdish Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-33') has stated in his evidence that on 18.10.2012, as per order of Superintendent of Police vide Order No. 272, he was deputed along with PC 811 Sunil Kumar Yadav to deposit the alamats of this case at CFSL, Kolkata, CFSL Hyderabad and Delhi. On 18.10.2012, he along with P.C. Sunil Kumar Yadav, went to CFSL Kolkata by MV Nicobar ship and deposited the sealed alamats on 22.10.2012 and obtained receipt. hh. On 18.10.2012, he along with P.C. Sunil Kumar Yadav, went to CFSL Kolkata by MV Nicobar ship and deposited the sealed alamats on 22.10.2012 and obtained receipt. hh. M.T. Abdul Salam (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-34') has stated in his evidence that on 23.09.2013, he received a signal from PS CCS to depute police personnel to collect the articles received from CFSL Kolkata in connection with case crime no. 100/12 of P.S. Rangat. He collected the articles along with the report of this case. As per evidence of this witness, he had gone through the report and prepared a supplementary charge sheet and handed over the same to the SHO for submitting a charge sheet. ii. Dilip Kumar Seal (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-35') has stated in his evidence that on 12.07.2012, he was the SHO in-charge of P.S. Rangat and on the same day, at about 9.20 AM, he was present at the Police Station. At that point of time, one Pradhan Manoj Biswas of Nimbutala Panchayat informed him over phone that the room of one Mahendranath Sarkar was closed from inside and, inspite of knocking on the door, nobody was opening the same. He was also requested to send some police personnel to see what had actually happened. Accordingly, he instructed the patrolling party of Nimbutala to go there and accompany the Pradhan. Thereafter, they went inside the house and found the dead body. As soon as he received this information, he rushed to the spot where he found a large gathering in front of the house of the deceased, including some police personnel. They entered the house once again through the back door and saw the deceased seated on a plastic chair with several cut injuries on his person. After seeing the body, it appeared to him that Mahendranath Sarkar had been murdered. Thereafter, he interrogated the younger son of the deceased, Manoj Kumar Sarkar, recorded his statement regarding the occurrence, and obtained his signature on statement on the spot. Next, he sent the written complaint to Rangat P.S. for registering a case u/s. 451/302 of IPC. Thereafter, an FIR was chalked out, being crime no. 100/12 dated 12.07.2012 u/s. 451/302 of IPC, against unknown persons. Thereafter, he took up the investigation. During investigation, the inquest of the dead body was done by ld. Executive Magistrate. Next, he sent the written complaint to Rangat P.S. for registering a case u/s. 451/302 of IPC. Thereafter, an FIR was chalked out, being crime no. 100/12 dated 12.07.2012 u/s. 451/302 of IPC, against unknown persons. Thereafter, he took up the investigation. During investigation, the inquest of the dead body was done by ld. Executive Magistrate. He had photographs of the crime scene taken and prepared a site plan with index. He seized one piece of bloodstained carpet, a piece of controlled carpet, one bloodstained plastic chair, and two bloodstained bed sheets under a proper seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses. Further, he found a bloodstained dao outside the room and he seized the same in the presence of two local witnesses. He also identified the seized alamats, such as pass book of Cooperative Bank, State Bank of India, one identity card, one epic card, ration card, one Krishi Card of Cooperative bank, one black colored money purse containing senior citizen pass for STS, one wrist watch, one ladies leather handbag, one gents leather bag, one shampoo, one Ponds powder, one Fair and Lovely cream, one mirror, some electricity bills, paper clipping of Daily Telegram newspaper dated 15.11.2003, and a number of land revenue receipts in the name of Mahendranath Sarkar under a proper seizure list. He recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s. 161 of CrPC. Subsequently, he collected the postmortem examination report of the deceased. He prepared the seizure list in respect of seized wearing apparels of the deceased. As per evidence of this witness, after postmortem examination, the dead body of Mahendranath Sarkar was handed over to his elder son, Subinay Sarkar, by preparing Supurdginama. As per evidence of this witness, Bhisnupado told him that a dao from his house was missing since 10.07.2012 and he also assured him that he could identify the said dao if its photographs were shown to him. Next, the photograph of the seized dao was shown to Bhisnupado and his son and they admitted that the said dao had been missing since 10.07.2012. On being asked, Bhisnupada handed over the joint photograph of Jagdish and his wife. He took the said photograph from Gourango, son of Bhisnupada. He recorded the statement of Bhishnupado, Gourango, Sandhya and Madhabi Mondal, and they also handed over Jagadish Mazumder's two contact numbers being 9531842895 & 9679049712. On being asked, Bhisnupada handed over the joint photograph of Jagdish and his wife. He took the said photograph from Gourango, son of Bhisnupada. He recorded the statement of Bhishnupado, Gourango, Sandhya and Madhabi Mondal, and they also handed over Jagadish Mazumder's two contact numbers being 9531842895 & 9679049712. He tried to contact Jagdish on the mobile numbers but there was no response. Thereafter, they got information that Jagadish Mazumder had gone to the mainland. Next, they went to Jagdish's native village at Balmuri under Dadpur P.S., District Hooghly after taking permission from their department. As per the evidence of this witness, they arrested Jagadish Mazumder and produced him before the court of Ld. CJM, Hooghly Sadar (Chinsurah) for transit remand. Accordingly, they took Jagadish Mazumder with them on 20.07.2012 and produced the accused before the Ld. CJM, Mayabunder on 21.07.2012. Thereafter, on 22.07.2012, Jagdish confessed his guilt before him in the presence of two witnesses, which was duly recorded by PW-35. It was then that they took Jagdish to Ulla Basti and he brought out the bloodstained check lungi and one white half pant kept inside the black polythene packet from inside a bush and handed the same over to him. He seized those articles on the spot under a proper seizure list. The articles were sealed and labeled on the spot. Thereafter, they took Jagadish Mazumder to R.P. Thangamalai's shop as shown by Jagadish Mazumder. On being asked, one employee named P. Pandi, of that shop, handed over one gold ring to PW-35. Jagadish Mazumder identified the same as that of Mahendranath Sarkar and the daughter of Mahendranath Sarkar also identified the gold ring as that of her father. He seized the gold ring under a proper seizure list in presence of the witnesses. He recorded the statement of P. Pandi, Sulekha Das, daughter of Mahendranath Sarkar, Raj Kapoor (staff of World Tour and Travel) and Miss Lalit (Caretaker of KVR Residency.) He collected the extract of the entry from the register of KVR Residency. As per evidence of this witness, he also recorded the further statement of Manoj Biswas and Amar Somaddar. Thereafter, on 24.07.2012 they produced the accused before the court of Ld. CJM, Mayabunder. He also took steps for adding Sections 449 and 380 of IPC before the Ld. Magistrate. As per evidence of this witness, he also recorded the further statement of Manoj Biswas and Amar Somaddar. Thereafter, on 24.07.2012 they produced the accused before the court of Ld. CJM, Mayabunder. He also took steps for adding Sections 449 and 380 of IPC before the Ld. Magistrate. He had taken steps for recording statement of the witnesses u/s. 164 Cr.PC, namely Sandhya Mistry, Madabi Mondal, Goutam Mistry and Gourango Mistry, which was duly recorded by the Ld. Magistrate. On 25.08.2012, he sent the seized alamats to CFSL, Calcutta for chemical examination through PS CCS. He seized the relevant GD entry of P.S. Rangat by preparing a proper seizure list. On completion of investigation, he handed over the case diary to the then SHO S.I. Mahesh Yadav for submitting the charge sheet. 7. Upon examination of the above evidence given by the witnesses and the other evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned ASJ came to the following findings: "After going through the material of the case record and also after considering the points of argument of both sides this court finds that there is no dispute over the issue that there is no direct evidence in this case and the case of the prosecution side is totally based on circumstantial evidence. But in this instant case, the defence side has adopted the plea that the chain of circumstances of the prosecution case has not been completed and so there is no chance of passing any order of conviction against the accused person. Over this issue this court after scanning the oral and documentary evidence on record finds that the following facts and evidence have completed the chain of circumstances:- i. The victim/deceased used to live alone at his house at Nimbutala under PS Rangat and he used to wear the gold chain, finger ring etc. and he had money and other valuable articles in his possession. ii. The accused person Jagadish Mazumder used to live at the house of his relatives in the same area and the accused person was in need of money for the purpose of running his business. iii. The accused person had intimacy with the victim/deceased and the accused person used to go to the house of victim/deceased at regular interval. iv. After the occurrence of the murder the accused person had left that area after collecting Air tickets for going to mainland. iii. The accused person had intimacy with the victim/deceased and the accused person used to go to the house of victim/deceased at regular interval. iv. After the occurrence of the murder the accused person had left that area after collecting Air tickets for going to mainland. v. The accused person had sold the gold ornaments at R.P. Thangamalai Jewellery Shop at Port Blair and collected money by giving false information that his mother expired at mainland and he would have to go to mainland. vi. The accused person was arrested from his house at Dadpur, Hooghly and he was brought to Port Blair by the police officer and then taken to PS Rangat where he had given statement confessing his guilt in the presence of two witnesses and his statement was recorded as person provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act. vii. On the basis of the confessional statement given by the accused person the police recovered the offending weapon and bloodstained wearing apparels of the accused person and some other valuable articles of the victim/deceased. viii. The accused person thereafter was brought to R.P. Thangamalai Jewellery Shop, Port Blair where from the police officer recovered the gold ornaments in the presence of the daughter of the victim/deceased and the employee of jewellery shop also identified the accused person. ix. The daughter of the victim/deceased Mahendranath Sarkar also identified the said gold ornaments as his father's ornaments and police seized the same. x. The reports of C.F.S.L. is supporting the case of the prosecution side. The report is showing blood matching in respect of the alamats examined by C.F.S.L. The oral and documentary evidence on record is clearly depicting that the accused person Jagadish Mazumder is involved in the murder of victim/deceased Mahendranath Sarkar and he committed the said murder for the purpose of taking away the gold ornaments and money of Mahendranath Sarkar. Therefore, I find that the accused person Jagadish Mazumder is guilty of the offence punishable under section 449/302/380 of IPC for committing house trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with death and for committing the murder of the victim/deceased Mahendranath Sarkar and also for committing theft of the gold ornaments of the victim/deceased." 8. Therefore, I find that the accused person Jagadish Mazumder is guilty of the offence punishable under section 449/302/380 of IPC for committing house trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with death and for committing the murder of the victim/deceased Mahendranath Sarkar and also for committing theft of the gold ornaments of the victim/deceased." 8. Based on the above finding, the learned ASJ came to the conclusion that the accused person was directly involved in the murder as the chain of circumstances clearly indicated that the accused was guilty and, therefore, punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 449 of the IPC. 9. Mr. Ilango, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the entire material and case record, including the depositions of each of the witnesses. Mr. Ilango has tried to persuade the court that there are several glaring discrepancies in the evidence given by PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-15, PW-16, PW-23, PW-26 and PW-35 and submitted that, due to the several discrepancies, there is a complete break in the chain of events of the prosecution's case. It is his submission that the evidence gathered by the prosecution has been a result of blinkers and blinders worn by the investigating officer. He further submitted that the investigating officer proceeded to build up a case against the appellant solely on the fact that the appellant had left the island after the occurrence of the murder and gone to the mainland where he resided. Mr. Ilango submitted that the chain of events, as reproduced by the learned ASJ, does not cover the crime from its initiation to its commission. He further submitted that the links in the chain of events have several gaps and the evidence brought forward by the prosecution does not substantiate the links in the chain. Mr. Ilango relied on the judgments of Sk. Yusuf -v- State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2011 SC 2283 [Coram: Dr. He further submitted that the links in the chain of events have several gaps and the evidence brought forward by the prosecution does not substantiate the links in the chain. Mr. Ilango relied on the judgments of Sk. Yusuf -v- State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2011 SC 2283 [Coram: Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.]; Ramchandra Sao v. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 10 SCC 467 [Coram: M.M. Punchhi, Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.]; Debapriya Pal v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2017 SC 1246 [Coram: A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.] and Puran v State of M. P. (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in CGLJ 2004 (2) 105[Coram: A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, L.C. Bhadoo, JJ.] to buttress his arguments that, in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove each fact in the chain of events by leading cogent evidence for the same. 10. In the course of arguments, learned advocate argued that the CFSL report does not support the case of the prosecution since the CFSL report indicates that blood could not be detected from Exhibit 10 (lungi of the deceased), blood group could not be detected in the bed sheet, dao and the half pant of the accused person. Moreover, the investigating officer had not taken any blood samples of the deceased to ascertain his blood group for comparison. He further pointed out that the dao was not recovered on the basis of any confessional statement made by the accused and the learned ASJ wrongly proceeded on that premise. He further submitted that the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is also not admissible as in the alleged statement the accused person had stated that he had hidden the wearing apparels beside the culvert whereas the investigation officer had recovered it from inside the bushes. He further pointed out that the investigating officer of the case had failed to explain the reason for not recovering one gold chain with toothpick on the directions of the accused person. He submitted that there are a lot of discrepancies in the chain of circumstances as the accused person cannot be entangled in this case on the basis of mere suspicion. He submitted that there are a lot of discrepancies in the chain of circumstances as the accused person cannot be entangled in this case on the basis of mere suspicion. He further submitted that learned ASJ has come to a conclusion that there is a complete chain of circumstances on the basis of his findings that the dao was recovered on the basis of statement given by the accused person and the CFSL report was purely supporting the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the fact remains that the CFSL report is totally against the prosecution's case and the dao, which is the alleged offending weapon, was not recovered on the basis of statement given by the accused person. Accordingly, he submitted that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate the fact that the chain of circumstances many loop holes and discrepancies, which could not be satisfactorily explained and the mere fact that the accused person was found absconding would not by itself make a case against the accused person of having committed any offence based on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that the accused person deserves to be acquitted in the instant case as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person. 11. Mr. N.A. Khan, learned Additional P.P, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges based on the oral evidence of the complainant, witnesses, the material produced as exhibits and materials brought on record. As per the learned P.P, the conduct of the appellant in fleeing from the place of occurrence, the confessional statement of the appellant, and the material recovered on the basis of such confessional statement completely prove the case of the prosecution, leaving no room for doubt of the appellant's guilt. In the course of arguments, learned Additional P.P. placed reliance on the oral evidence of the complainant, seizure witnesses and to the facts stated in the FIR. He argued that the prosecution side has proved the charges laying emphasis on the evidence of the complainant, seizure witnesses and also relying on the documents which are marked as Exhibits. As per the argument of the ld. Addl. P.P., the CFSL report and the postmortem examination have supported the case of the prosecution. It is also pointed out by the ld. Addl. As per the argument of the ld. Addl. P.P., the CFSL report and the postmortem examination have supported the case of the prosecution. It is also pointed out by the ld. Addl. P.P. that the statements of Sandhya Mistry, Madabi Mondal, Goutam Mistry and Gorango Mistry had been recorded u/s. 164 CrPC and that the statements clearly supports the case of the prosecution. It is also highlighted by the Addl. P.P. that the prosecution has also proved mens rea and has established that the accused person has murdered the victim, Mahendranath Sarkar, in order to commit theft of the gold chain, gold finger ring, and Rs. 150/- in cash. For all these reasons, Addl. P.P. submitted that the prosecution case has been proved and the appeal has no merit. 12. I have considered the submissions of both sides in connection with the appeal, examined the evidence on record and meticulously examined the testimony of the 35 witnesses. Upon such an examination, I find certain discrepancies that are palpably clear. The same are highlighted below: a. P.W. 15, the daughter of the deceased, stated in her deposition that on 23.07.2012, the police called her to Thangamalai Jewellery, Port Blair. On reaching the shop, the police showed her one ring, which she identified as her father's ring. In her cross-examination, she changed her earlier statement and stated that the shop-keeper showed her the ring and not the police. b. P.W. 16, the staff working at Thangamali Jewellery, stated that on 11.07.2012, the accused came to the shop and handed over a gold ring to him for sale. The accused was identified by P.W. 16 on the dock itself. According to him, the weight of the ring was 5.14 gram and, as per the market value on date (11th July, 2012), he gave Rs. 7,000/- to the accused in exchange for the gold ring. Thereafter, on 23.07.2012, the said ring was handed over to the police and the police had the ring identified by the daughter of the deceased. In the seizure list prepared, the weight of the gold ring has been stated as 5.43 grams. Furthermore, on checking the value of gold in the year 2012, I found that the value of gold during the entire year never went below Rs. 30,000/- per 10 grams. In light of the same, an approximate figure of Rs. In the seizure list prepared, the weight of the gold ring has been stated as 5.43 grams. Furthermore, on checking the value of gold in the year 2012, I found that the value of gold during the entire year never went below Rs. 30,000/- per 10 grams. In light of the same, an approximate figure of Rs. 15,000/- should have been the value of the ring. The fact that only Rs. 7,000/- was paid by the shopkeeper to the accused remains unexplained. Furthermore, PW. 16 stated that a purchase register is maintained by the shop, but the police did not seize any register from the shop to validate the transaction. He further stated that one of the policemen who came to the shop was acquainted with him and also stated that the value of the gold in 2012 was Rs. 1,600/gram, a fact that was evidently not checked by the police and clearly appears to be incorrect. c. The statement of P.W. 18 that he had provided a BSNL SIM card to the accused and, thereafter, spoke to him on this number on several occasions is not substantiated by any corroborated evidence. P.W. 20, who is the staff of BSNL, Port Blair, provided the call details of the SIM card, but could not provide the subscriber details in the name of P.W. 18. The statement of P.W. 22, who is the manager of Bharti Airtel, Port Blair, is that the police requested him to provide the details, name, address and phone call details of subscriber of Airtel SIM no. 9933249700. He stated that he supplied the subscriber details only wherein Jagadish Mazumder was the subscriber. It is to be noted that the call details were not provided by P.W. 22 to the police. There is no explanation as to why the police did not make any further efforts to obtain the call details for the SIM registered in the name of the accused. This fact of not obtaining call details of the mobile of the accused further weakens the prosecution's case. d. The CFSL Report stated that 11 items were examined, out of which, two being Exhibits 10 and 11, allegedly belong to the accused. Exhibit 10 is the lungi and Exhibit 11 is the half pant that was supposedly worn by the accused at the time of commission of the offence. d. The CFSL Report stated that 11 items were examined, out of which, two being Exhibits 10 and 11, allegedly belong to the accused. Exhibit 10 is the lungi and Exhibit 11 is the half pant that was supposedly worn by the accused at the time of commission of the offence. Surprisingly, no blood could be detected from the lungi. On the half pant (Exhibit-11) blood of human origin was detected but, as specifically pointed out in the report, no blood group could be detected from the same. The fact that some blood was detected in the half pant, but no blood was detected in the lungi that is worn over the half-pant, goes against the case of prosecution. Furthermore, the fact that no blood matching the blood group AB of the victim was found on the two apparels further weakens the case of the prosecution. One more point to be noted is that Manoj Biswas (P.W. 3), Amar Samaddar (P.W. 4), Goutam Mistry (P.W. 18) and Dilip Kumar Seal (P.W. 35) have stated that when the lungi was recovered, the same were bloodstained. The seizure list being Exhibit 3 also stated that the lungi was bloodstained and the said seizure list was signed by P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 18 and P.W. 35. The fact that no blood could be detected by the forensic laboratory on the lungi adversely impacts and lowers the credibility of the testimony of the P.W.s 3, 4, 18 & 35. e. It is clear from the seizure report of the police, dated 12.07.2012, that the Dao was recovered on the day of discovery of the murder, at a distance of 50 metres from the victim's body at the back side of his house. However, the learned ASJ, in his chain of circumstances, has noted that the police recovered the offending weapon on the basis of the confessional statement given by the accused person. This finding is perverse as the statement of the appellant was taken on 22.07.2012, ten days after the discovery of the body of the deceased. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the non-judicial confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not have any reference whatsoever to the offending weapon nor has any reference to how the murder was committed. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the non-judicial confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not have any reference whatsoever to the offending weapon nor has any reference to how the murder was committed. f. It is to be noted that the dao has been placed before the trial court as the murder weapon. However, the CFSL report reveals the inability to trace the blood group 'AB' on the dao. Furthermore, it is to be noted that no evidence has been brought on record to show whether the appellant's finger prints were found on the dao, the murder weapon. g. Anulekha Halder, P.W. 7 has stated that she had delivered milk on 11th July, 2012 at the victim's house and thereafter gone again on 12th July, 2012 to supply milk. In her entire evidence, there is no mention of whether the bottle of milk, which was delivered on 11th July, 2012, was present at the same place on the next day, and whether the milk had been consumed or not by the victim. This piece of information is important as it was later found that the victim had died on 10.07.2012, a day before she delivered the first bottle of milk. Furthermore, the evidence of this witness is vulnerable as she has stated that she clearly saw the victim sitting in the same position on 12th July, 2012 as he was sitting on 11th July, 2012. However, she did not see any blood stains anywhere in the room or on the victim. The pictures that were taken by the photographer at the time of discovery of the crime indicate that there was an enormous amount of blood stains on the floor and the position of the body was such that, if the witness had seen the body, she would have seen the blood stains on the body and on the floor as well. h. The evidence of Raj Kapoor, P.W. 26, who stated that he sold the ticket from Port Blair to Calcutta to the appellant has also not been corroborated by the prosecution with any documents. One is unable to understand as to why the police did not take copies of the invoice, purchase and sale registrar maintained by the witness and the copy of the ticket from the witness. One is unable to understand as to why the police did not take copies of the invoice, purchase and sale registrar maintained by the witness and the copy of the ticket from the witness. The P.W. 35 in his statement has also stated that he collected the ticket but surprisingly no such document has been exhibited by the prosecution. i. The police did not at any stage carry out any proper identification test (Test Identification Parade) of the appellant by any of the witnesses brought forward by the prosecution. 13. In the present case, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has built its case solely on circumstantial evidence as there is a complete lack of any direct evidence whatsoever. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to examine the burden of proof in cases, where there is no direct evidence, and the case of the prosecution is founded on a chain of events. The Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has propounded the principles relating to circumstantial evidence. Some of the key judgments are discussed below. 14. In the very recent judgment of Suresh and another v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2018 SC 4045 [Coram: N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.], the Apex Court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt and, therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of 'chain link theory' and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant paragraph containing the ratio is delineated below: "39. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidences, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of 'chain link theory' and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the 'chain link theory' since Hanumant case ( AIR 1952 SC 343 ) (supra), which of course needs to be followed herein also." 15. The principles governing the 'chain link theory' were propounded by the Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 [Coram: M.C. Mahajan, S.R. Das and Bhagwati, JJ.]. Justice M.C. Mahajan, authoring the judgment, held that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "10. ............ In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg. ............ In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg. V. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin 227) where he said: "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them completely." It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused............. " 16. Following the ratio laid down in Hanumant (supra), the Supreme Court in Charan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1967 SC 520 [Coram: S.K. Das, A.K. Sarkar and K. Subba Rao, JJ.], further held that the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below: "5. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below: "5. It is well established that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person; that is, the circumstances should be of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. To put it in other words, the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person............................ " 17. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 [Coram: S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.], the Supreme Court, after laying down five conditions to be fulfilled before a case against an accused is fully established, further held that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 : AIR 1973 SC 2773 : (1974) 1 SCR 722 : 1974 Cri LJ 1] this Court made the following observations: [SCC para 25, p. 820: SCC (Cri) p. 1060] "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 18. In the case of State of U.P. v Satish reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114 [Coram: Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.], the Supreme Court, upon careful analysis of precedents, reiterated the five conditions precedent to basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "14. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952. 15. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [ 1952 SCR 1091 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] it was observed thus: (SCR pp. 1097-98) "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 16. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 ]. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153) (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153) (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 19. In the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another -v-State of A.P reported in (2006) 10 SCC 172 [Coram: S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.], the Apex Court observed that to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of the guilt of the accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [ (2003) 9 SCC 67 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1167] and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. [ (2005) 7 SCC 603 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1710])." 20. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [ (2003) 9 SCC 67 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1167] and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. [ (2005) 7 SCC 603 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1710])." 20. In the case of Ganpat Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 16 SCC 353 [Coram: N.V. Ramana and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.], the Apex Court observed in cases lacking eye witnesses and on the 'last seen theory' as follows: "9. There are no eyewitnesses to the crime. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the law postulates a twofold requirement. First, every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Second, all the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The principle has been consistently formulated thus: "The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence." 10. Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes significance when the lapse of time between the point when the accused and the deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the hands of another. The settled formulation of law is as follows: "The last-seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. The settled formulation of law is as follows: "The last-seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases." 21. In the case of Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 9 SCC 315 [Coram: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.], the Supreme Court cautioned that the court has to be circumspect and wary that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "21. Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. Similarly Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that confession by the accused person while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. However, to the aforesaid rule of Sections 25 to 26 of the Evidence Act, there is an exception carved out by Section 27 of the Evidence Act providing that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Such statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker. Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Such statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. 22. As the section is alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant about its application. The court must ensure the credibility of evidence by police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. It does not, however, mean that any statement made in terms of the aforesaid section should be seen with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation. The court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 22. In the case of Madhu v. State of Kerala reported in (2012) 2 SCC 399 [Coram: A.K. Ganguly and J.S. Khehar, JJ.], the Supreme Court further held as follows: "48. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is being extracted hereunder: "27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." 49. As an exception, Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that a confessional statement made to a police officer or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against him, if the same leads to the discovery of an unknown fact. The rationale of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is, that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The rationale of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is, that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance under the exception postulated by Section 27 aforesaid, is limited "... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered....". The rationale behind Section 27 of the Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional statement. And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search, Section 27 aforesaid has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act." 23. One may also examine the precedent cited by counsel on behalf of the appellant in Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal (supra) that dealt with the law on circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of an extrajudicial confession. Relevant portions of the judgment are delineated below: "22. ....... Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witness must be clear. Unambiguous and clearly convey that accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The "extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility". 26. Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 27. ............. The nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is very limited. If an accused deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, and as a result of such disclosure, recovery of the weapon is made, no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused." 24. In light of the Supreme Court judgments noted hereinabove, what emerges is that in a case where no direct evidence is available, the prosecution can prove their case through circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which will lead to the accused's guilt. In a majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of 'chain link theory' and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. The chain link theory as developed in the judgment of Hanumant (Supra) has clearly 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 chain link theory as developed in the judgment of Hanumant (Supra) has clearly 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. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that, within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 25. Applying the aforesaid principles, one would need to examine firstly whether the chain of events as formulated by the prosecution and accepted by ld. ASJ is complete and leads one to the conclusion that there is no reasonable doubt that the murder of the victim was committed by the accused person. On a closer examination of the 10 points noted by the ld. ASJ as the chain of events, it is quite clear that point Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have neither any relation to the initiation nor the commission of the offence. The 4th point that the accused person had left the area after collecting the air tickets can also only give rise to conjectures and surmises. The fact that a person leaves a particular place to go back to his place of residence is no proof of any motive nor can it be treated as evidence of his having committed any offence. Point no. 5 with regard to the sale of the gold ornament by the appellant at the jewellery shop at Port Blair by giving false information that his mother had expired at mainland is not backed by cogent evidence as the statement of the staff of the shopkeeper contains many discrepancies as pointed out above. Point no. 6 relates to the arrest of the accused and his confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Point no. 7 has been incorrectly recorded by ld. Point no. 6 relates to the arrest of the accused and his confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Point no. 7 has been incorrectly recorded by ld. ASJ as the police did not recover the offending weapon based on the confessional statement given by the accused as has been detailed above. Furthermore, the bloodstained wearing apparels of the accused person that were recovered, based on the statement given under Section 27 do not help the prosecution's case in any manner whatsoever as the CFSL report did not find any bloodstains on the lungi and could not match the bloodstains on the half pant with that of the victim. With regard to the Point no. 8, it is to be noted that the accused was not identified by the staff of the jewellery shop. In fact, the identification, if any, was done during the trial by the staff. Therefore, the proper procedure for the identification of the accused by the staff of the jewellery shop was not followed. Furthermore, the statement of the staff is suspect, as pointed out in the discrepancies stated earlier. Point no. 9 relates to the daughter of the deceased identifying the gold ring as her father's ring. Point no. 10 relates to the report of the CFSL wherein the ld. ASJ has concluded that the CFSL report is supporting the prosecution's case. According to the ld. ASJ, the report is showing the blood is matching in respect of the apparels of the victim and the deceased. As pointed out in the discrepancies earlier, this finding of the ld. ASJ is absolutely incorrect and is not borne out of the CFSL report. In fact, the report of the CFSL clearly states that no blood was found on the lungi and the blood group of the victim could not be detected on the half pant. 26. On a perusal on the chain of circumstances listed by the ld. ASJ, one is unable to comprehend as to how the chain of circumstances leads to any cogent and identifiable evidence that links the accused to the commission of the offence of the murder of the deceased. In fact, the CFSL report is completely contrary to the case of the prosecution. ASJ, one is unable to comprehend as to how the chain of circumstances leads to any cogent and identifiable evidence that links the accused to the commission of the offence of the murder of the deceased. In fact, the CFSL report is completely contrary to the case of the prosecution. The other factors, such as the victim being known to the accused, the fact that the victim and accused lived in the same area, the accused went to the mainland a day after the offence was committed and one gold ring was recovered cannot by itself lead to any inference that the murder was committed by the accused. It is to be noted that in the present case, out of 35 witnesses examined by the prosecution, none of them is an eyewitness. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused was the person last seen with the deceased. In fact, the statement of P.W. 7 assists the accused as no one had even seen the accused approach the house of the deceased on the day of the murder. It may also be noted that the prosecution has been unable to show with certainty that the dao recovered by them is the murder weapon. There has been no evidence brought forward by the prosecution that the blood of the victim was found on the dao, i.e., the murder weapon. In fact, as pointed out above, the ld. ASJ has proceeded on a wrong footing that the dao was recovered on the basis of the confessional statement given by the accused when, in fact, the dao had been recovered 10 days prior to any statement given by the accused. 27. In view of the stringent requirement of the burden of proof in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove its own case and the fact that the accused does not lead any evidence or simpliciter denies the case of the prosecution cannot lead to an inference of the guilt of the accused. In the present case, as pointed out in paragraph no. 25, the chain of circumstances itself is very weak and it neither connects the accused to the offence of the murder of the deceased nor to the other offences under Section 449 and Section 380 of IPC. It is to be noted that the accused was not seen entering the victim's house. 25, the chain of circumstances itself is very weak and it neither connects the accused to the offence of the murder of the deceased nor to the other offences under Section 449 and Section 380 of IPC. It is to be noted that the accused was not seen entering the victim's house. The only point on which the prosecution has proceeded is the recovery of the gold ring from the jewellery shop in Port Blair. Here again, as pointed out earlier, the statement of the staff of the jewellery shop is not above suspicion and is incongruous regarding the price of the gold ring paid to the accused. Furthermore, it is clearly established that the staff was well acquainted with one of the policemen from before. This fact, together with the inconsistent statements made by him, leads to a clear inference that the testimony is unreliable and therefore further weakens the case of the prosecution. 28. In light of the above discussion, I am unable to hold that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the loopholes and discrepancies in the evidence clearly leads one to the conclusion that there was a good case wherein the accused should have been given the benefit of doubt. 29. Thus, in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution, I find it really difficult to lend support to the order of conviction recorded against Jagdish Majumdar and, in my considered view, the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charges framed against Jagdish Majumdar and the learned Judge totally misdirected himself in the matter of appreciation of evidence, and ignored the settled legal principles governing circumstantial evidence. 30. Thus, after careful consideration of the entire prosecution evidence and keeping in mind the settled position of law, I am of the view that there was practically no evidence to support the order of conviction and sentence against Jagdish Majumdar and as such I find merit in this appeal. 31. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against Jagdish Majumdar are hereby set aside and the appellant is found not guilty of all the charges framed against him and stands acquitted. 32. I find from the records that Jagadish Mazumder is in detention, and in view of my judgment, he must be released forthwith from this case if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. 33. 32. I find from the records that Jagadish Mazumder is in detention, and in view of my judgment, he must be released forthwith from this case if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. 33. A copy of this judgment and order should be immediately sent to the Superintendent of the Correctional Home where Jagadish Mazumder is detained for his immediate release. 34. Certified copy of this judgment and order may be supplied on making proper application and after complying with all legal formalities. Harish Tandon, J. 35. I have gone through the draft judgment of my Brother Judge, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Saraf and I fully agree with the findings and/or reasons assigned therein including the conclusion. However, I intend to add few words to supplement such findings and the exposition of law which I understand should have some relevance in the context. 36. My brother Judge has elaborately and meticulously examined the evidence of several witnesses deposed in the case and have further analysed the same in pursuit of upholding the truth. 37. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident nor the theory of last seen together has any role to play in it. All the eye-witnesses echoed that they have not seen the accused with the victim before his death and, therefore, the prosecution has launched the case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. 38. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 laid down five broad principles to constitute the proof of case based on circumstantial evidence namely:- (i) the circumstances must be of such magnitude which would fully establish the conclusion of guilt; in other words, the circumstances concerned should be "must" and not "may be." (ii) There must be the consistency in the established facts leading to hypothesis of guilt of accused and there should not be any room for any explanation or any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) Exclusion of any possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (v) The chain of events must be so complete as there is no room of any reasonable ground of conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 39. (iv) Exclusion of any possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (v) The chain of events must be so complete as there is no room of any reasonable ground of conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 39. It is further held in the said report that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and no advantage can be derived from the defence weakness in these words:- "151. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held in only this: where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or plea which is not accepted by a Court." 40. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated and reapplied in the majority decision rendered in Dhal Singh Dewangan Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2016) 16 SCC 701 in these words:- "25. Considered in the aforesaid perspective, we do not find the statements attributed to PW 6 Kejabai by PWs 3 and 5 to be satisfying the essential requirements. The house of the appellant, according to the record, was at a distance of 100 yards from Gandhi Chowk, where these witnesses are stated to have found PW 6 Kejabai crying aloud. Both in terms of distance and time, the elements of spontaneity and continuity were lost. PW 6 Kejabai has disowned and denied having made such disclosure. But even assuming that she did make such disclosure, the spontaneity and continuity was lost and the statements cannot be said to have been made so shortly after the incident as to form part of the transaction. PW 6 Kejabai has disowned and denied having made such disclosure. But even assuming that she did make such disclosure, the spontaneity and continuity was lost and the statements cannot be said to have been made so shortly after the incident as to form part of the transaction. In the circumstances, we reject the evidence sought to be placed in that behalf through PWs 3 and 5. Even if we were to accept the version of PWs 1 and 2, the same would also suffer on this count and will have to be rejected. 26. We are therefore left with certain pieces of circumstantial evidence and have to see if those circumstances bring home the case of the prosecution. The principles how the circumstances be considered and weighed are well settled and summed up in Sharad as under: (SCC p. 185, Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra paras 153-54) "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao 7 where the observations Bobade v. State of Maharashtra were made: (SCC p. 807, para 19) '19. ... There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao 7 where the observations Bobade v. State of Maharashtra were made: (SCC p. 807, para 19) '19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.' (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.' 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 41. In case of Tomaso Bruno Vs. State of U.P reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 the Apex Court held that where the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence the decree of proof is higher and the chain of circumstances must be complete and should not lead to any hypothesis or other reasonable probabilities. Above all it is emphasised therein that the motive assumes great significance in the following:- "33. Where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence. If motive is indicated and proved, it strengthens the probability of the commission of the offence. In the case at hand, the evidence adduced by the prosecution suggesting motive is only by way of improvement at the stage of trial which, in our view, does not inspire confidence of the court." 42. It is one of the foremost requirement when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence that the statements of the witnesses must be trust-worthy, reliable and need to know other presupposition except the guilt of the accused. It is one of the foremost requirement when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence that the statements of the witnesses must be trust-worthy, reliable and need to know other presupposition except the guilt of the accused. The motive is the important facet which must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The chain of events must be found complete at the guilt of the accused ruling out any other probability either on presumption based on the existence of the facts or in absence of any credential evidence of high decree. 43. Any sketchy evidence which do not lead to the probability of proving the guilt is not a foundational stone to prosecute the accused. More so, it has been seen that improper or faulty investigation sometimes creates a doubt on the guilt of the accused which ought to be and may raise a plausible doubt against the guilt of the accused. 44. The first witness (P.W 1) is a son of the deceased and admittedly resides at a distant place than of the victim i.e., his father. He proceeded to state that he was called by a villager of Nimbutala at about 8:00 A.M on 12/07/2012 that no sound was coming from his father's house nor he was responding to any calls. He immediately visited the site but did not get any response from his father. He thereafter called the pradhan of Nimbutala village who came there within half an hour along with the police force. He further proceeds to say that the front door of the house was closed from inside but the back door though closed was not bolted. Everybody entered into the house from the back door and found no source of light. Subsequently they found that the victim was sitting on a plastic chair under the rotating ceiling fan and the T.V was on A.V mode. In order to ascertain the situation more clearly the lights were switched on and it was found that the said victim had a deep cut injury on his head, throat and other parts of the body and the blood was oozing out splitting over the chair leading way down to the floor. He touched the body of his father and found him dead. He categorically stated that his father used to wear a gold chain, finger ring and gold tooth pick but those articles were found missing. 45. He touched the body of his father and found him dead. He categorically stated that his father used to wear a gold chain, finger ring and gold tooth pick but those articles were found missing. 45. It is his further statement that the police recovered one blood stained dao (sharp weapon) from the back side of the house along with the handbag belonging to his father containing some important documents such as ration card, identity card etc.,. According to his statement the villagers told him that they have not seen his father since last three days. The P.W 2 is the younger brother of the deceased who reached the spot at 10:00 A.M on 12/07/2012 after having informed of such incident and found on his arrival that the police were present at the spot. Both the aforesaid witnesses echoed that they have not visited the victim since last several months. All other witnesses except P.W 7 derived the knowledge of such incident after being informed by the villagers of the locality and, therefore, such evidence is required to be scanned for the purpose of establishing the chain of events. The P.W 7 who supplies milk to the deceased unequivocally stated that she went at about 7:00 A.M on 11/07/2012 to give a milk and found the victim sitting on chair in front of the T.V though the front door was bolted from inside. According to her she entered through the back door and kept the milk on the table. An explanation is sought to be given by her that she did not call the victim as she was told by him earlier not to disturb in the morning hours. She again went on 12/07/2012 to supply milk and found the deceased in a same condition/position as of the previous day. She called the deceased but did not receive any reply from him and went back to her house and narrated such incident to Sachin Halder, Subal Halder and Tapas expressing the doubt on the condition of the deceased. She further stated that subsequently she heard that the said deceased was murdered and the accused was known to her as he used to visit the house of the victim occasionally. 46. She further stated that subsequently she heard that the said deceased was murdered and the accused was known to her as he used to visit the house of the victim occasionally. 46. None of the aforesaid three persons were examined by the prosecution side except P.W 10 who is the resident of Nimbutala and carpenter by profession who stated that the aforesaid three persons came to him and stated that the deceased was not opening his door as per the version of the P.W 7. There appears to be inconsistency in the evidence of the P.W 7 and P.W 10. The P.W 7 categorically stated that she entered the house of the deceased from the back door which was un-bolted and kept the milk bottle on the table but P.W 10 narrated the incident that the said deceased was not opening his door and he thereafter informed the incident over telephone to one of his son (P.W 1). The P.W 10 has further stated that he along with the other persons entered into the house from the back door and found the deceased in a sitting condition on the chair having a sharp cut injuries on his head and neck. He thus stated that the floor and carpet of the room was stained with blood which is corroborated in the inquest report as well. 47. There is a complete silence on the fact whether the milk bottle which was supplied by P.W 7 on 11/07/2012 was still kept on the table unconsumed. None of the witnesses said to have seen the accused possessing the sharp weapon causing death of the deceased. The evidence of P.W 12 and 13 who happened to be the resident of the said locality and the near relative of the accused were taken as a vital piece of an evidence by the Sessions Judge to form the chain of events leading to the guilt. The P.W 12 stated that the accused came to their house two months prior to the incident and left the same two days before the discovery of the murder. She identified the weapon (dao) and further stated that the accused had a visiting terms with the deceased. The P.W 13 stated that the accused wanted some money from her for her business which she refused to pay. She identified the weapon (dao) and further stated that the accused had a visiting terms with the deceased. The P.W 13 stated that the accused wanted some money from her for her business which she refused to pay. She further stated that the dao which he used to keep under the pillow of her son every night was found missing on and from 10/07/2012. However, she stated that the accused came to their house at 9:00 P.M and went directly to his room and was also found tensed while consuming the food in the night. 48. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Sessions Judge held that the accused was guilty of committing murder of the deceased with the said weapon (dao) which was recovered on disclosure and identification of the accused that was precisely a reason the Sessions Judge was of the view that the accused is guilty of murder and there is unbreakable link in the chain of events. 49. The aforesaid fact does not appear to be correct from the record. The seizure list would evince that the weapon (dao) recovered by the investigating team of the police from the back court-yard of the deceased house on 12/07/2012, whereas the accused was apprehended and arrested on 22/07/2012. It ruled out the story of the disclosure of the weapon by the accused and, therefore, the finding of the Sessions Judge is not acceptable. 50. There is another link which the Sessions judge found to have completed the chain of events on the sale of the golden ring to a shopkeeper at Port Blair. It is a categorically statement of the P.W 1 that his father used to wear golden ring, golden chain with golden tooth pick but those were found missing when the inquest was made. The P.W 16 who stated to have purchased the golden ring stated that the accused brought such golden ring to him on the pretext that he needs immediate money to go to the main land to see his ailing mother. The weight of the gold ring was 5.14 gm and as per the market value he offered Rs. 7,000/-. According to him he purchased such gold ring on 11/07/2012 and such gold ring was identified by the daughter of the deceased. 51. The weight of the gold ring was 5.14 gm and as per the market value he offered Rs. 7,000/-. According to him he purchased such gold ring on 11/07/2012 and such gold ring was identified by the daughter of the deceased. 51. There was no attempt made on the part of the prosecution to prove that the said gold ring belonged to the deceased except on the version of the daughter of the deceased. She also could not prove that the father purchased the said gold ring or used to wear all along nor any attempt was made from the investigating officer to identify the ring amongst the other rings. 52. Even apart, mere discovery of the gold ring from the goldsmith allegedly sold by the accused cannot be related to a murder of the deceased by the accused. The reference in this regard can be made to an observation of the Apex Court in case of Prakash Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2014 Criminal Law Journal 2503 wherein it is held "in any event, even assuming that the ornaments belonging to gangamma, at best prakash would be guilty of having received stolen property but could certainly be not guilty of having murdered gangamma." 53. There is another striking facts which I feel is important in the context. The pant and the lungi was discovered on the disclosure of the accused. The Sessions Judge held that they contained the stain of blood and it is presumed that the accused was wearing such apparel at the time of committing murder. 54. P.W 3, P.W 18 and P.W 35 uniformly stated that the lungi was recovered which contained the blood stains. Astonishingly the CFSL report indicates that there was a blood stain in the pant but no blood stain was found in the lungi. It is improbable that no blood stain can be found on lungi but only on pant, when such lungi is used as a outer apparel and the pant as inner apparel. The credibility of the aforesaid three witnesses is also doubtful that at the time of seizure both the pant and the lungi contained blood stains. It is improbable that the outer apparel does not contain blood stain whereas the inner apparel contained such in absence of any convincing materials having produced from the end of the prosecution. 55. The credibility of the aforesaid three witnesses is also doubtful that at the time of seizure both the pant and the lungi contained blood stains. It is improbable that the outer apparel does not contain blood stain whereas the inner apparel contained such in absence of any convincing materials having produced from the end of the prosecution. 55. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to get the blood group of the blood stains contained on the pant. The reliance can be placed to the observation of the Apex Court in Prakash (supra) where on an identical facts it is held:- "61. In any event, the recovery of the blood stained clothes of Prakash do not advance the case of the prosecution. The reason is that all that the prosecution sought to prove thereby is that the blood group of Gangamma was AB and the blood stains on Prakash's seized clothes also belong to blood group AB. In our opinion, this does not lead to any conclusion that the blood stains on Prakash's clothes were those of Gangamma's blood. There are millions of people who have the blood group AB and it is quite possible that even Prakash had the blood group AB. In this context, it is important to mention that a blood sample was taken from Prakash and this was sent for examination. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory [Exh. P-27] was to the effect that the blood sample was decomposed and therefore its origin and grouping could not be determined. It is, therefore, quite possible that the blood stains on Prakash's clothes were his own blood stains and that his blood group was also AB. 65. We are not satisfied with the conclusion of the High Court that since the clothes of Prakash were blood stained and the stains bore the same blood group as that of Gangamma, the circumstance could be used against Prakash. A serological comparison of the blood of Gangamma and Prakash and the blood stains on his clothes was necessary and that was absent from the evidence of that prosecution." 56. The chain of events which according to the Sessions Judge is found complete does not appear to be so. A serological comparison of the blood of Gangamma and Prakash and the blood stains on his clothes was necessary and that was absent from the evidence of that prosecution." 56. The chain of events which according to the Sessions Judge is found complete does not appear to be so. There is a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused and, therefore, it does not appear to me that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused. 57. I do not want to reiterate the other facts appearing from the record as the same has been lucidly and elaborately narrated by my Brother in the draft judgment and I fully agree with the findings made therein. 58. In view of the above I hold that the impugned judgment is not sustainable. 59. The appeal is thus allowed.