JUDGMENT : N.B. Suryawanshi, J. 1. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by IInd Ad-Hoc Additional Judge, Washim, in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2005. By this appeal, the appellant questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case in short is:- Shriram Ambadas Shinde and Tukaram Sakharam Dindarkar are resident of Risod. Fields of Tukaram and Shriram were adjacent to each other. A quarrel ensued between Shriram and Tukaram on 28/07/2005 on account of Shriram having cut some branches of tree in his land, Tukaram abused Shriram. On 29/07/2005, between 8:00 to 8:30 am, Shriram left his house for going to his field on bicycle. On the way, he met Gaybya Pawar who was standing in the court-yard of his house near Rural Hospital of Risod. Sadashiv, son of Gaybya was also present there. Shriram told them about the quarrel with the accused Tukaram on the previous day. When Shriram, Gaybya and Sadashiv were talking, Tukaram came and proceeded towards his field. Shriram asked Kathalu, relative of Gaybya, to accompany him to his field, however since he had work to do, he refused to go. Then, Shriram proceeded towards his field on bicycle. Sometime later, Sunita - wife of Shriram and Rukhmabai - mother of Shriram came in their field, however they did not find Shriram there. On noticing the crowd near the gas godown, which was near their field, at about 11:00 a.m. Sunita and Rukhmabai proceeded there. They noticed bicycle of Shriram lying nearby and the dead body of Shriram was lying by the side of the road. The dead body was partly in the water, accumulated in the excavated portion by the side of the road and partly above water. Bleeding injury was seen on the head of the deceased. One ear of the deceased was cut. There were also other injuries on his body. Shriram was dead before Sunita and Rukhmabai came to the spot. Police jeep arrived on the spot. Sunita and Rukhmabai went to Police Station in the said jeep. 3. Bleeding injury was seen on the head of the deceased. One ear of the deceased was cut. There were also other injuries on his body. Shriram was dead before Sunita and Rukhmabai came to the spot. Police jeep arrived on the spot. Sunita and Rukhmabai went to Police Station in the said jeep. 3. FIR was lodged by PW 7 Sunita, widow of deceased on the same day at about 12:15 p.m. Before lodging of the FIR, the accused Tukaram was brought to the Police Station, Risod and he confessed of having committed the murder of Shriram in the presence of PW 7 Sunita and PW 8 Rukhmabai. The motive for crime was illicit relation of deceased Shriram with Ratnamala wife of brother of the accused Tukaram. On the basis of the FIR, Crime No. 131 of 2005 was registered by Risod Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested and he gave information which led to recovery of axe - murder weapon. The blood stained clothes of the accused were seized. Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama were conducted. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 4. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. In his written statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant claimed that the deceased used to purchase stolen property from Pardhi people including PW 5 Gaybya and PW 6 Sadashiv and others who are residents of Risod. The deceased also used to assist PW 5 Gaybya and PW 6 Sadashiv in commission of thefts. According to the appellant, on account of purchase of the stolen property from these witnesses and other people of Pardhi community, relation of deceased were strained with them. Thus, it was implied by the appellant that the deceased was killed by somebody from the Pardhi community. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and the appellant examined 2 defence witnesses. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant as stated above. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned APP. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and the appellant examined 2 defence witnesses. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant as stated above. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned APP. We have through the notes of evidence, grounds raised in the appeal memo and the material brought on record by the prosecution and defence. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances. There is no evidence on record that the deceased and appellant were seen together going towards their respective fields.' So the circumstance of last seen together is not established by the prosecution. Further submission is that it is not the prosecution case that the appellant was chasing the deceased, The accused was seen going towards his field first and thereafter the deceased followed. The prosecution witnesses PW 5 and PW 6 have not noticed any unnatural behaviour of the accused at that time. The recovery of murder weapon is doubtful as the prosecution has not proved that the field from where the murder weapon was recovered belongs to the appellant. It is further urged that the incident of murder had taken place much prior in point of time and 5 accused persons have done it. To cover it up, false story is put up by the prosecution. It is urged by learned advocate for the appellant that there are three complaints of the same incident, first is the oral report lodged PW 7 Sunita against 5 persons, second is the report (Exhibit 45) and FIR (Exhibit 46) and third is the report forwarded by PW 8 Rukhmabai to the S.P. Office, Washim and private complaint lodged by her in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the prosecution has proved a complete chain of circumstances on record. The motive is proved. The blood group of deceased was 'B' and blood stains of group B were found on the clothes of the accused and on the murder weapon axe. Hence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the prosecution has proved a complete chain of circumstances on record. The motive is proved. The blood group of deceased was 'B' and blood stains of group B were found on the clothes of the accused and on the murder weapon axe. It is further submitted that the prosecution has proved by leading cogent evidence that it is only the appellant who is the author of the murder. The learner APP, therefore, submits that the appeal being devoid of any merit, the same may be dismissed. 9. PW 9 Arvind Harbade - Medical Officer proved the post mortem report (Exh. 56). On internal examination of the dead body of the deceased, the following injuries were found:- 1. CLW over upper scalp 8 x 4 x 2 c.m. 2. CLW over right lateral scalp 6 x % x 2 c.m. 3. CLW over left scalp @ x 5 x 3 x 2 cm. 4. CLW over scalp 3 x 2 x 1 c.m. 5. CLW over scalp 4 x 2 x 1 c.m. 6. Contusion over back 6 x 2 c.m. 7. Contusion over back 4 x 2 c.m. 8. Right pinna cut with bleeding present @ x 3 x 1 c.m. 9. CLW over right first finger 2 x 1 x 1 c.m. According to him, the Injury Nos. 1 to 5 may be caused by sharp object and they were upto the base of the scalp. Internal bleeding in the scalp due to said injuries was also noticed. According to him, Injury Nos. 6 to 9 were caused by hard and blunt object. On seeing the murder weapon axe (Article 18), he deposed that Injury Nos. 1 to 5 can be caused by the said axe. According to him, the death was due to haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Thus, the homicidal death is proved by prosecution. 10. To prove the last seen theory, the prosecution has examined PW 5 Gaybya Pawar and his son PW 6 Sadashiv. They both have stated in their evidence that on the day of incident, in the morning at about 8:00 - 8:30 a.m., when they were standing in the court-yard of their house, Shriram came on the bicycle and he told that he had a quarrel with the accused Tukaram on the previous day. They both have stated in their evidence that on the day of incident, in the morning at about 8:00 - 8:30 a.m., when they were standing in the court-yard of their house, Shriram came on the bicycle and he told that he had a quarrel with the accused Tukaram on the previous day. Then, they saw the accused Tukaram walking towards the field. Shriram, in their presence, requested Kathalu to accompany him to his field but since Kathalu had some work, he refused to go. Thereafter, Shriram proceeded by the same road i.e. Ghansal road and went towards his field. After sometime, the wife and mother of Shriram came crying and informed that Shriram was killed. Thereafter, they both went to the spot of incident and saw the dead body of Shriram having multiple injuries. 11. PW 7 Sunita wife of deceased proved report lodged by her at Exhibit 45 and the FIR at Exhibit 46 wherein the motive of murder by appellant is stated to be illicit relations of deceased with appellant's brother's wife. She stated that, on the previous day of incident, her husband had gone to the field. After coming back, he told her that when he was collecting leaves of the tree in the field, the appellant abused him. In that night Sakharam - father of the appellant came to their house and told that he did not want any quarrel with the neighbour. According to her, on 29/07/2005 in the morning at around 8:00 a.m. her husband Shriram proceeded towards the field on bicycle. Between 9:00 to 9:30 a.m., Sunita and her mother-in-law walked towards the field, however they did not find Shriram in the field. Then, they noticed some crowd near the godown of gas company situated near their field. At about 11:00 a.m., they went towards the godown and found the bicycle of Shriram lying on the ground and the his body was seen partly submerged in the water accumulated in excavated portion of the ground and he was dead. Shriram had sustained bleeding head injury. Then the police jeep came there and police took them to the police station. There, Sunita orally lodged report of the incident which was recorded by the police officer and it was read over to her. She put her thumb mark on her report. Shriram had sustained bleeding head injury. Then the police jeep came there and police took them to the police station. There, Sunita orally lodged report of the incident which was recorded by the police officer and it was read over to her. She put her thumb mark on her report. When she was lodging the report, the police officer brought the appellant at the police station. At that time, the appellant made the confession of his guilt in her presence, stating that he killed Shriram by giving axe blows. Then, Sunita's report (Exh. 45) was recorded. 12. In the cross-examination, Sunita admitted that first oral report was given by her against five persons and thereafter her second report was recorded, when the appellant made a confession. An omission about confession made by the appellant is brought on record by the defence in her cross-examination. 13. PW 8 Rukhmabai mother of the deceased also deposed in tune with PW 7 Sunita. She also narrated that the previous days quarrel was disclosed by Shriram. Shriram left at about 8 to 8:30 a.m. in the morning and she and Sunita walked towards the field at about 9:30 a.m. but they did not find Shriram there. Then, they noticed the crowd near the gas godown. When they went to the spot, they saw that the bicycle of Shriram was lying on the ground and the dead body of Shriram was noticed partly in the water and partly above the water. Shriram had sustained bleeding head injury. Then, Police jeep came there and they were taken to Police Station. PW 7 disclosed five names to the police. Those five persons were brought in the Police Station and enquiry was made. Appellant Tukaram admitted his guilt and disclosed that as Shriram had illicit relations with wife of his brother, it was the reason for committing murder. 14. In the cross, this witness admitted to have forwarded written complaint to S.P., Washim and copies of it to the other authorities one month after the incident. She denied to have sent complaint against 5 persons. She admitted to have filed a private complaint on 07/12/2005 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod in respect of the murder of her son and accusing 5 persons for the murder. She denied to have sent complaint against 5 persons. She admitted to have filed a private complaint on 07/12/2005 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod in respect of the murder of her son and accusing 5 persons for the murder. A certified copy of the private complaint lodged by her in R.C.C. No. 210 of 2005 was brought on record by the defence, however since the said complaint was not verified by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the certified copy was not exhibited. 15. PW I Bandu proved Inquest Panchnama (Exhibit 29) and Spot Panchnama (Exhibit 30). On the same day i.e. on the day of incident, the appellant was arrested and he gave a memorandum statement (Exh. 32) and by drawing panchanama (Exh. 33), it led to the seizure of murder weapon axe (Article 18) which was concealed in the field of the appellant, under the heap of rubbish. Both these panchanamas are proved by PW 2 Sheetal. Vide panchanama Exh. 35, baniyan and brown coloured pant having mud and blood-stains were seized from the house of the appellant in the presence of panch PW 3 Kailash. PW 4 Uttam proved panchnama (Exhibit 38) in respect of seizure of blood-stained clothes of the deceased. In spite of searching cross to the panchas, nothing detrimental to the case of the prosecution could be brought on record by the defence. 16. PW 10 Ram Hate is the Investigating Officer who recorded the report of Sunita (Exhibit 45) and on that basis, he registered FIR (Exhibit 46). He conducted investigation by drawing Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama. He seized the murder weapon axe (Article 18) at the instance of the appellant. He forwarded the Articles to forensic lab. He proved on record the Chemical Analyzer's report (Exhibit 24) which states that the blood group of deceased was "B". As per the Chemical Analyzer's report (Exhibit 23), group 'B' blood was found on the clothes of the accused as well as on the murder weapon axe and on the clothes of the deceased. Earth from the spot was found mixed with human blood. He submitted the charge sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod. 17. In his cross, he stated that Sunita had not lodged any written report accusing 5 persons, however she told to make enquiry against five persons. Earth from the spot was found mixed with human blood. He submitted the charge sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod. 17. In his cross, he stated that Sunita had not lodged any written report accusing 5 persons, however she told to make enquiry against five persons. He also stated that the said fact of Sunita telling names of five persons is mentioned in the FIR (Exhibit 46). He had called those 5 persons at the police station. He also admitted that one month after the incident, S.P. Office, Washim received a complaint application sent by PW 8 Rukhmabai alleging commission of murder by 5 persons. He made enquiry on that application. In the said application, it was alleged that PW 7 Sunita and PW 8 Rukhmabai had seen the incident that five persons assaulted Shriram. He further stated that the appellant was arrested on 29/07/2005 at 5:00 p.m. 18. The appellant examined defence witnesses Kailas Chaure who is inward and outward Clerk in the S.P. Office, Washim and brought on record the complaint application of Rukhmabai dated 29/08/2005, which was sent to the Court. 19. Advocate Indresh Vishwakarma was examined as DW 2 who drafted the complaint (Exhibit 76) at the instance of Rukhmabai and brought on record the certified copy of the complaint (Exhibit 77) lodged in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. 20. On careful analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, circumstances appear against the accused are:- 1. Fields of the appellant and deceased were adjacent to each other. 2. Quarrel between the appellant and Shriram on the previous day which was established in the evidence of PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 8. 3. On the day of incident, in the morning at about 8:30 am, deceased Shriram while proceeding towards his field told PW 5 and PW 6 about the previous days quarrel with the appellant. At that time, the appellant was seen going towards his field. Thereafter, the deceased went to his field. 4. At about 9:00 to 9:30 a.m., PW 7 and PW 8 went to their field, however deceased Shriram was not found in the field. 5. At about 11:00 a.m., PW 7 and PW 8 went towards the godown of gas company to see why crowd was gathered there. 6. Thereafter, the deceased went to his field. 4. At about 9:00 to 9:30 a.m., PW 7 and PW 8 went to their field, however deceased Shriram was not found in the field. 5. At about 11:00 a.m., PW 7 and PW 8 went towards the godown of gas company to see why crowd was gathered there. 6. Bicycle of deceased Shriram was found lying nearby and the dead body of deceased was found partly submerged in the water, accumulated in the excavated portion by the side of the road. 7. Police jeep arrived on the spot and carried the dead body and PW 7 and PW 8 to the Police Station. 8. The appellant was arrested on the same day and at his instance, the murder weapon axe with blood stains was recovered from his field which was concealed under the heap of rubbish. 9. On the day of incident itself, the blood stained clothes were recovered from the house of the appellant. 10. Blood group of deceased was 'B', Clothes of the appellant and the murder weapon axe were found stained with group 'B' blood. 11. Short interval between PW 5 and PW 6 seeing the appellant and deceased going towards their fields and finding of the dead body of deceased. 21. Taking into consideration the aforestated circumstances established on record by the prosecution, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is no substance in the defence taken by the appellant that Pardhi people might have killed Shriram. The falsity of defence taken by the appellant can be termed as additional circumstance against the appellant. 22. In this case, the prosecution has alleged that the motive behind commission of murder of the deceased by the appellant was illicit relations of deceased with brother's wife of the appellant who was a neighbour of the deceased. Though in the FIR, this fact is mentioned as confession given by the appellant in the Police Station, PW 7 Sunita has not stated this fact in the evidence. PW 8 Rukhmabai in her evidence has disclosed that the appellant at the time of admitting the guilt at the police station disclosed that the deceased Shriram had illicit relation with the wife of his brother. Therefore, he killed Shriram. PW 8 Rukhmabai in her evidence has disclosed that the appellant at the time of admitting the guilt at the police station disclosed that the deceased Shriram had illicit relation with the wife of his brother. Therefore, he killed Shriram. The confession since was made in the presence of Police Officers, the same is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is not admissible. 23. In Arun Dharma Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in: 2001 (4) Mh LJ 360, this Court has held that:- "10. In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive plays a vital role in determining the guilt of the accused. If other circumstances proved by the prosecution, unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, then absence of proof of motive would not be a circumstance which would vitiate the conviction. In other words, if the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete that absence of proof of motive is inconsequential, however, if motive, as a circumstance is relied by the prosecution for forging the chain of circumstantial evidence, then the prosecution is burdened with the responsibility of proving the same. 11. What impels an accused to commit a crime, is a question which is difficult to answer. The same set of facts may not necessarily impel a person to commit a crime, but the same set of facts may impel another to commit a crime. The reason as to why a person commits a crime is difficult to be fathomed. However, if the proved circumstances suggest an inference that these circumstances would impel an accused to commit a crime, then the proved circumstances can be said to furnish a motive to the accused for commission of the crime. In the present case, the proved circumstances do suggest that appellant had a grudge against the deceased and on the previous day, he quarreled with him and abused him." 24. Though learned advocate for the appellant tried to take advantage of the multiple reports submitted by PW 7 and PW 8, the same does not help the appellant in the light of the proved circumstances on record by the prosecution, which unerringly points out the guilt of the appellant. Thus, we do not agree with the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant that because of the multiple reports, benefit of doubt needs to be given to the appellant. 25. Thus, we do not agree with the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant that because of the multiple reports, benefit of doubt needs to be given to the appellant. 25. The learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and was justified in convicting the appellant. 26. In view of the aforestated discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:- (a) Criminal Appeal No. 465/2006 is hereby dismissed. (b) The appellant shall surrender to undergo the remaining sentence. (c) The appellant is entitled for set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (d) Muddemal property be dealt with according to law after the appeal period is over.