ORDER : 1. The matter is taken up through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 3. This is an appeal filed by the accused challenging the order dated 10.03.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 187/2007 (State of Assam vs. Fr. Thomas Ekka), by which the present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month. 4. The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution show that the alleged incident occurred on the night of 02.09.2005 at a place called Bishop’s House of the Tezpur Diocese, at Tezpur, Assam. In the incident, the Vicar General of Tezpur Diocese, Father Mathew Nellickal, was allegedly killed by the accused/appellant in the night of 02.09.2005, after 9:30 P.M. The body of the deceased was discovered by PWs 3 and 5, namely, Father Paul Dahanga and Father Luis Arimboos, respectively, on the next day morning, i.e. on 03.09.2005. A First Information Report was lodged on 03.09.2005 by PW-4, namely, Father Akasius Toppo and the FIR was registered as Tezpur P.S. Case No. 684/2005. However, since there was no progress in the police investigation, the matter was given to the CID for investigation and, during investigation the accused/appellant was arrested from his house at Kapati, in the district of Darrang. The CID completed its investigation and filed Charge-sheet against the accused/appellant on 11.05.2006. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the matter being transferred from the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tezpur, framed charges on 14.02.2008. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited material documents and objects before the trial court. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited material documents and objects before the trial court. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the defence. On completion of the trial, the learned trial court gave its finding that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced for life imprisonment. 6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant before this court is that, admittedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of events must be complete and, more importantly, the entire chain of events should be such that they must point only to one conclusion that the accused has committed the murder. In other words, the evidence and the chain of events should be such that it must only logically conclude to the sole hypothesis, which is the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant would, therefore, argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution do not complete the chain of events and, in fact, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The incident, as already referred above, occurred in the night of 02.09.2005. Both the accused/appellant as well as the deceased are priests of a Catholic Seminary. The deceased occupied higher rank in this hierarchy and was, at the relevant time, holding the rank of “Vicar General” of the Tezpur Diocese and was residing at the Bishop’s House at Tezpur. The accused/appellant, on the other hand, was working as a Father in a seminary and was attached to the Guwahati Diocese, which is a different Diocese from the Tezpur Diocese. At the relevant time, the accused/appellant was residing at Bagicha Gaon, Kopati, in the district of Udalguri. 8. After the dead body of Father Mathew Nellickal was discovered by PW-5 and PW-6 in the morning of 03rd September, 2005, in the store room, which was adjacent to the bathroom of the deceased, thereafter, on filing of the FIR, as already referred above, police came to the place of occurrence and inquest was conducted at around 12:40 onwards. 8. After the dead body of Father Mathew Nellickal was discovered by PW-5 and PW-6 in the morning of 03rd September, 2005, in the store room, which was adjacent to the bathroom of the deceased, thereafter, on filing of the FIR, as already referred above, police came to the place of occurrence and inquest was conducted at around 12:40 onwards. The Inquest Report dated 03.09.2005 reads as under: “Now, I, Dayaram Saikia, Tezpur P.S. accompanied by police personnel, arrive at the Bishop House V.G. Room, Tezpur at 12:40 p.m. today (03.09.2005) and hold inquest on the dead-body of Fr. Mathew Nellickal to the following effect: Fr. Akasiaus Toppo identifies the dead body. The age of the deceased is about 65 years. The deceased was 2nd In-charge of District Bishop Association. The original residence of the deceased is at Kaho District, Kerala. The deceased is lying prostrate in the godown of Bishop House with its head towards the south. An injury caused by sharp weapon is present in the left side of the head of the deceased. On examination of the dead body by tossing and turning it, several injuries caused by sharp weapon are found in the head of the deceased. One cream coloured sporting and a blue pair of long pants are found in the wearing of the deceased. The entire body including the face of the deceased is soiled with blood. Though it could be learnt that some miscreants had killed him (deceased) by striking him with sharp weapon, yet to ascertain the exact cause of death, the dead body is being sent for autopsy to Tezpur Civil Hospital under the custody of Constable No. 354 Prafullah Bora by providing him necessary documents.” 9. After completion of the inquest, the body was sent for post mortem examination. Post mortem examination was conducted on the same day, i.e. 03.09.2005. The relevant portion of the post mortem report reads as under: “A stout dead body of a male person, 65 years of age with rigor mortis present with mouth open: (a) One deep incised (sharp cutting) would extending from the left eyelid to the mid portion of the occipital area dividing the left ear into 2 parts (8 cm x 6 cm x 8 cm). Brain matter comes (coming) out. Brain matter comes (coming) out. (b) One deep incised wound on the frontal area on the right side extending from Right eyelid to mid part in the occipital bone (8 cm x 6 cm x 4 cm). (c) Middle finger of the right hand is cut with sharp cutting weapon on the proximal metaphalengeal (sic) joint (4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm). (d) Sharp cutting injury to the scalp over the occipital area 8 in number one above the other, all are 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm.” As per the medical opinion in the post mortem report, the cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock as result of the injuries sustained. 10. As already referred above, the matter was thereafter given to the CID and the accused/appellant was arrested on 08.09.2005. As per the prosecution, the accused/ appellant confessed to have committed the crime when he was brought to the place of occurrence a few days after his arrest. The accused/appellant even demonstrated as to how he had committed the crime by giving a blow on the back of the head of the deceased with a showpiece weapon and then how he dragged the body of the deceased to the store room next to the bedroom of the deceased, where the deceased was repeatedly assaulted by him. The accused/ appellant also confessed that after committing the crime, the weapon was thrown into the river Brahmaputra, which is nearby, barely 15/20 meters from the place of the occurrence. Police also recovered some blood stained clothes including trousers from the house of the accused at Kopati. Fingerprints were taken by the Investigating team from the place of occurrence, including from the almirah. Thereafter, on 08.09.2005, fingerprints were also taken from the Guest Room, where the accused had stayed on the night of the occurrence, i.e. 02.09.2005. These two fingerprints have matched and they belong to the same person. 11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses, as already stated above. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are briefly summarised as under: PW-1 is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 03.09.2005. These two fingerprints have matched and they belong to the same person. 11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses, as already stated above. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are briefly summarised as under: PW-1 is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 03.09.2005. In his examination-in-chief he acknowledged the injuries, which we have already referred above, and said that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and his opinion was that these injuries caused haemorrhage and shock which resulted into the death of Father Mathew Nellickal. PW-2 is Father George A. Prakash, who at the relevant time was the Father-in-Charge of the Catholic Church at Nagaon, Assam. According to this witness, on 02.09.2005, the accused/appellant started from his residence at Kopati and reached Nagaon Catholic Church, Nagaon, at around 10:00 A.M. and met PW-2, namely, Father George A. Prakash in the later office and requested him to accompany the accused/appellant to a place called “Missa” to meet another Father called Father Leo Tirki in connection with opening of an “Ashram” (hermitage). PW-2 expressed his inability to accompany the appellant since he was supervising some construction works at Nagaon but, at the same time, he offered the accused/appellant coffee and requested him to stay in his Guest Room till lunch. However, at around 12 O’clock he discovered that the accused/appellant had already left the Guest Room. This particular witness (PW-2) then states that he felt somewhat guilty for having annoyed the accused, i.e. Father Thomas Ekka, and to mend matters he proceeded towards Missa, but did not find the accused there, and then thinking that he must have gone to Bishop’s House at Tezpur, proceeded towards Tezpur and reached the Bishop’s House in the evening, where he saw the accused/appellant and Father Mathew Nellickal having meal with other Fathers. Later, he left Tezpur for Nagaon at about 9:00 P.M. Before he left Tezpur for Nagaon, he saw Father Nellickel (deceased) going inside his room in the Bishop’s House. PW-3 is another Father, namely, Father Paul Dahanga. Later, he left Tezpur for Nagaon at about 9:00 P.M. Before he left Tezpur for Nagaon, he saw Father Nellickel (deceased) going inside his room in the Bishop’s House. PW-3 is another Father, namely, Father Paul Dahanga. In his examination-in-chief, PW-3 said that on 02.09.2005 he had gone to attend a religious programme and returned to the Bishop’s House at about 10:30 P.M. At the time when he reached the Bishop’s House, the Bishop’s House was in dark due to power shedding and therefore, he could not meet Father Mathew Nellickal that night. In the morning, Father Mathew was supposed to attend a programme at Saint Joseph Convent. Since Father Mathew did not attend the programme at Saint Joseph Convent, a search was made for him by PW-3 along with PW-5 and PW-6 (Father Luis Arimboos and Father Phillip Barla, respectively) and they found that the room of Father Mathew was bolted from inside. Then they reached the backside of the house and found that the door of the bath room was open. Then they went inside the room and found Father Mathew Nellickal lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood. They noticed some injuries on the head of the deceased, which were clearly visible. PW-3 was cross-examined by the defence, but nothing could be elicited which would help the case of the defence in any manner. PW-4 is Michal Ahasius Toppo, who was the Bishop at the relevant time, is also the informant. In his examination-in-chief he said that on 02.09.2005 when he was at Dhanuwanagar Muktidata Seminary, he received a phone call from Bishop’s House at Tezpur asking him to reach there immediately as something had happened. When he reached the Bishop’s House at Tezpur, he saw the dead body of Father Mathew Nellickal and he was shocked. He then prepared an FIR which was sent to Tezpur Police Station. Thereafter, he speaks about the preparation of inquest report etc. and the matter being handed over to CID. According to him, the matter was given to the CID because Tezpur Police did not have any clue about the matter. The CID collected sample of the blood on the wall of room No. 21 (where the accused had stayed at the night of murder) and taking a cue from there police went to Kopati and arrested the accused. According to him, the matter was given to the CID because Tezpur Police did not have any clue about the matter. The CID collected sample of the blood on the wall of room No. 21 (where the accused had stayed at the night of murder) and taking a cue from there police went to Kopati and arrested the accused. PW-4 also states that the police had seized the blood stained garments including trousers from the house of the accused at Kopati. Thereafter, this particular witness states that after 3/4 days of the occurrence, police took the accused to the place of occurrence where he was called by the police to be a witness. There the accused demonstrated as to how he entered the room of the deceased, had conversation with the deceased Mathew Nellickal and then when he (i.e. the accused) got angry, he took a knife lying in the room, which was meant for decoration and gave a blow on the head of the deceased by the blunt side of the knife. PW-4 further states that during the demonstration the accused said that the deceased fainted and the accused dragged the deceased to the store room adjacent to the office room, where he gave multiple blows by the said knife on the head of the deceased. PW-4 states that the accused further said that thereafter he came out of the room from the backdoor of the toilet and threw the knife in the river Brahmaputra. The accused then washed his hands and face near the water tank and went to the first floor of room no. 21. PW-4 then states that the demonstration and the statements were given by the accused twice, once before the police and thereafter, before the Superintendent of Police. The whole episode was videographed and photographs were also taken. All the same, the prosecution has never exhibited the said video cassette and the photographs and it has never been placed as evidence before the trial Court. In his cross-examination, this witness states that he stays at another place which is called Muktidata Seminary where he has been allotted a quarter. He resides there with other three Fathers and 89 students. They come to the Bishop’s House as and when they are called. He then describes the area of the Bishop’s House, the rooms etc. In his cross-examination, this witness states that he stays at another place which is called Muktidata Seminary where he has been allotted a quarter. He resides there with other three Fathers and 89 students. They come to the Bishop’s House as and when they are called. He then describes the area of the Bishop’s House, the rooms etc. In his cross-examination, he further states that there are four dogs inside the compound of the Bishop’s House to watch the Bishop’s House during the night. In cross-examination, PW-4 admits that prior to the arrest of the accused, neither he nor any other occupant of the Bishop’s House had suspected that it is the accused who had committed the murder. This particular witness, in his cross-examination, states that naturally there was no hue and cry at the time when the incident took place because the place where the incident took place was isolated from the remaining part of the Bishop’s house, and the incident had already occurred at night. The Chowkidar also did not find anything suspicious, otherwise he would have reported the matter. PW-4 states that the deceased was from Kerala and he worked for many years in this area and was in a prestigious post. This witness further states that the accused belongs to a different Diocese at Guwahati and had come to Tezpur from his house at Kopati, where he wanted to open an “Ashram.” It appears that the defence, thereafter, moved another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of PW-4 and this witness was re-examined on 18.02.2012 wherein he was cross-examined at length. PW-4 disclosed in his cross-examination that the accused was a member of a different diocese at Guwahati, but he wanted to settle at Tezpur by opening an “Ashram” nearby for which permission was to be granted by the deceased but he did not get favourable response from the deceased. PW-5 is another Father, namely, Luis Arimboos. This witness states that during the years 2000 to 2009 he was serving as Secretary to the Bishop at Tezpur Bishop’s House. He states that deceased Father Mathew Nellickal was Vicar General at the Bishop’s House at Tezpur and his position was next to the Bishop’s. He states that on 03.09.2005, at about 9:30 in the morning he came to know about the incident. He states that deceased Father Mathew Nellickal was Vicar General at the Bishop’s House at Tezpur and his position was next to the Bishop’s. He states that on 03.09.2005, at about 9:30 in the morning he came to know about the incident. He describes as to how he along with PW-3 discovered the body of the deceased at the Store room next to the bedroom of the deceased. PW-6, Father Phillip Barla, is another member of the Seminary and he states that he had been staying at the Bishop’s house, Tezpur, since 2002. In his examination-in-chief he states that he had seen the accused at about 8:30 A.M. on 03.09.2005 on the ground floor of the Bishop’s house. He has admitted that he met the accused in the night of 02.09.2005 at dinner time and, thereafter, he saw the accused again in the next morning. He further states that he had no knowledge as to who had caused the death of Father Mathew Nellickal. PW-7 is another resident of Bishop’s House at Tezpur. This witness states that on 02.09.2005, at about 9:15 P.M. the accused had come to him asking for a stick to open the ventilators of the room where the accused was staying. The accused took Mosquito Bar from PW-7 the returned the same after some time. PW-8 is the Cook at the Bishop’s House at Tezpur and PW-9 is the Chowkidar. Their deposition, however, does not reveal anything new to strengthen the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-10 was, at the relevant time, posted as Extra Assistant Commissioner at Tezpur. In his examination-in-chief PW-10 deposed that on 10.09.2005 he went to the Bishop’s House at Tezpur as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, in connection with a murder case. He further deposed that he had met the accused and the accused confessed before him that he had committed the murder of Father Mathew Nellickal with a “dao” [local knife] and that he had thrown the “dao” [local knife] in to the river Brahmaputra. PW-10 further states that he had gone to the Diocese in the capacity of an Extra Assistant Commissioner and there were about 5/6 other persons in front of whom the accused demonstrated as to how he had committed the murder. PW-11 was at the relevant time posted as an Executive Magistrate at Tezpur. PW-10 further states that he had gone to the Diocese in the capacity of an Extra Assistant Commissioner and there were about 5/6 other persons in front of whom the accused demonstrated as to how he had committed the murder. PW-11 was at the relevant time posted as an Executive Magistrate at Tezpur. He states that on 07.09.2005 as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner he went to the Bishop’s House in connection with the murder of Father Mathew Nellickal. He states that it was in his presence that certain materials, such as finger prints etc. were collected from room no. 21 of the Bishop’s house where the accused had stayed in the night of the incident. PW-12 and PW-15 are the persons who are witness to the inquest. PW-13 is a labourer who had helped the police in collecting the evidence from the bathroom of the Bishop’s house by cutting/taking out pieces of the blood stained concrete wall. PW-14 is another witness who was working as a driver at the Bishop’s house. The prosecution could not elicit anything new from this witness to strengthen their case against the accused. PW-16 is another resident of Bishop’s house, namely, Father Nathniel Dhawal. This witness states that on 02.09.2005, at about 9:15 P.M. he received a call from Father Mathew Nellickal but no voice was coming from the opposite side. He heard some noise like dragging of chairs and then the mobile phone of Father Mathew went off. On the next morning, at about 10:00 A.M. he was informed that Father Nellickal had been murdered. PW-17, namely, Franscis Ekka, is a student of the accused. This witness states that on 03.09.2005 the accused came to his house and asked him to prepare launch. He further states that at that time the accused was shivering and looked at his watch several times. He found the behaviour of the accused unusual. PW-18 is the Investigating Officer. This particular witness was taken to a lengthy cross-examination by the defence. In his cross-examination PW-18 admitted that he had taken sample of blood stains from the concrete wall from the room where the accused stayed on the night of September 2, 2005, as well as from the place of murder, but he did not send the same to the FSL for forensic examination. He has also admitted that there is no FSL report regarding these articles. He has also admitted that there is no FSL report regarding these articles. PW-18 has also admitted that he had seized the blood stained cloths from the house of the accused but these cloths were not sent to FSL for examination. He also admitted that he never recorded the statement of PW-4 (i.e. the informant) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-19 is a retired sub-Inspector of Police. He states that at the relevant time he was posted at the SP Office, Tezpur, as a sub-Inspector of Police. He states that on 30.04.2006 he, along with other police officials were called to the Bishop’s house at Tezpur and were asked to do videography of a crime scene of death of father in the Bishop’s House as enacted by the accused and the recorded cassette and the camera were seized. He states that the camera was subsequently returned to him and the cassette, which had the video recording of the alleged demonstration done by the accused, was never produced before the court. He admitted that he had not seen the cassette in the court amongst the exhibits. PW-20 is the witness to the seizure of the camera and the cassette which were used by the police to record the crime scene at the Bishop’s House. PW-21 is Mr. Ataur Rahman, who at the relevant time was posted at CID Headquarters at Guwahati as a Finger Print Expert. In his deposition he states that on 04.09.2005 he along with others were called to Tezpur to collect evidence from a crime scene and collected finger prints from the scene of the crime and room no. 21 where the accused was staying on the night of 02.09.2005. He is an important witness as he collected the blood stained finger prints from the crime scene as well as from room no. 21. The forensic report of the finger prints collected from the crime scene and the finger prints collected from room no. 21 give conclusive evidence that these finger prints are of the same person. What is missing here, however, is that the blood stained cloths were never sent for forensic examination and there is no report to show that the blood stains found at the crime scene were human blood and/or that the blood was of the deceased or of the accused. What is missing here, however, is that the blood stained cloths were never sent for forensic examination and there is no report to show that the blood stains found at the crime scene were human blood and/or that the blood was of the deceased or of the accused. PW-22 is another Finger Print Expert who had carried out the necessary tests/comparisons of the finger prints collected from the crime scene and from room no. 21 of Bishop’s House. PW-23 is another witness who, at the relevant time was posted as Bench Assistant in the CJM Court, Sonitpur, Tezpur. He states that on 14.09.2005 statements of PW-2 and PW-3, namely, Father George A. Prakash and Father Paul Dahanga, respectively, were recorded in the court. 12. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied to have committed the crime. He has also denied the depositions of the prosecution witnesses made against him. As far as his demonstration of the crime at the place of occurrence is concerned, he states that he had done so under compulsion as he had been mentally and physically tortured by the police. It was under torture and duress that he made those statements before the police. 13. This is a case of homicidal death. In fact, a dastardly murder has been committed inside Bishop’s House where a priest (Father Mathew Nellickal) was killed. All the same, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in the form of an eye witness who has seen the commission of this murder. Courts have to be very circumspect in coming to a finding of guilt of an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence. As long back as in the year 1952 the Apex Court, in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 , stated as under: “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. 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.” 14. The level of circumstantial evidence required for a finding of guilt has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 . In Charan Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1967 SC 520 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “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.” 15. A very heavy onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in a case of circumstantial evidence and five factors have been laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . The five factors are: (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 merely ‘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. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (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. 16. In the present case, the chain of circumstance presented by the prosecution is as follows: On the night on 02.09.2005 the accused comes to the Bishop’s House with the alleged purpose of getting permission from the deceased for opening an “Ashram.” He spends that night in the Bishop’s House, the fact which has been proved by the prosecution. From that night till about 8:00 A.M. on the next day his presence in the Bishop’s House cannot be doubted. Another set of circumstance is that the fingerprints of the accused found in the room where he stayed in the night, match with the fingerprints found on the almirah in the room of the deceased, where the alleged crime was stated to have been committed. But this is not denied by the defence. The accused stayed in a room at Bishop’s House on September 2, 2005. He also visited the deceased in the room of the deceased on September 2, 2005. Therefore, presence of his finger prints in the room where he stayed and in the room of the deceased is natural. That does not prove that he committed the crime. 17. Motive, which is another relevant factor presented by the prosecution, is that the deceased was not giving the accused permission to open the “Ashram” and therefore he killed the deceased in a fit of anger. Can this be motive for a murder? Merely because permission was not being granted, will a priest kill another priest inside a Bishop’s House? Is this an impelling motive? All these factors were liable to be considered by the learned trial court, which have not been considered in their true perspective. 18. To our mind, in this case the trial court has not dealt with the circumstantial evidence as it ought to have been done in a case of this nature. Is this an impelling motive? All these factors were liable to be considered by the learned trial court, which have not been considered in their true perspective. 18. To our mind, in this case the trial court has not dealt with the circumstantial evidence as it ought to have been done in a case of this nature. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal G. Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 35 , the Appellate courts do not expect that the entire law governing a case of circumstantial evidence must be stated in the judgment, but we would definitely appreciate the application of legal principles which must be been done in a case of circumstantial evidence. 19. Apart from the chain of circumstances not being complete in the present case, there is one important lacunae in the case of the prosecution. According to the prosecution, a few days after the accused was arrested and while he was in police custody, he was brought to the scene of crime and he enacted the commission of crime in front of many witnesses, which was both videographed and photographed. Although there are prosecution witnesses in the form of PW-4 and PW-10, who have stated in the witness box that the accused had demonstrated as to how he had committed the murder, the fact remains that all these being done by the accused before the police, which is not admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, this incident was both photographed and videographed. The video cassette was never produced before the court by the prosecution. This could have been at least an important evidence for the prosecution against the accused. The trial court would then have been in a much better position to appreciate the veracity of that evidence, as it would have the opportunity to clearly examine the demeanour of the accused. Non-presentation of the same casts a presumption against the prosecution in terms of Illustration (g) [114. Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations: The Court may presume: (a) *** *** (b) *** *** (c) *** *** (d) *** *** (e) *** *** (f) *** *** (g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it] of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. This is what has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a more recent case of Tomaso Bruno and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 , where, in a case of murder, which was committed inside a hotel in Benaras, CCTV footage, though available, was not produced by the prosecution and non-production of the CCTV footage was held to be fatal for the prosecution. Paragraphs 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tomaso Bruno (supra) read as under: “21. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by the prosecution is that the accused persons were present in the hotel room at the relevant time. PW-1 Ram Singh-Hotel Manager stated that CCTV cameras are installed in the boundaries, near the reception, in the kitchen, in the restaurant and all three floors. Since CCTV cameras were installed in the prominent places, CCTV footage would have been best evidence to prove whether the accused remained inside the room and whether or not they have gone out. CCTV footage is a strong piece of evidence which would have indicated whether the accused remained inside the hotel and whether they were responsible for the commission of a crime. It would have also shown whether or not the accused had gone out of the hotel. CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing. Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case. 22. In his evidence, PW-1 has stated that he monitors the affairs of the hotel on CCTV while sitting in reception. Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case. 22. In his evidence, PW-1 has stated that he monitors the affairs of the hotel on CCTV while sitting in reception. PW-1 further stated that he saw the CCTV footage at the relevant time and on the fateful night no person was having ingress or egress to the said room. PW-13 Dharambir Singh, investigating officer, also stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night on CCTV but he has not recorded the same in his case diary as nothing substantial emerged from the same. 23. The trial court as well as the High Court ignored this crucial aspect of non-production of CCTV footage. The trial court as well as the High Court relied on the oral testimony of PW-1 Ram Singh, hotel manager, that no one entered Room No. 459 between the relevant period on the intervening night of 3.2.2010 and 4.2.2010 which is based on the CCTV footage. Courts below accepted the version of PW-1 and PW-13 to hold that there was no relevant material in the CCTV footage to suggest that a third person entered the hotel room. The trial court and the High Court, in our view, erred in relying upon the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-13 who claim to have seen the CCTV footage and they did not find anything which may be of relevance in the case. *** *** *** 26. The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case. Non- production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made. 27. As per Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. 27. As per Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. The presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Unlike presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no option but to draw statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court has the option; the court may or may not raise presumption on the proof of certain facts. Drawing of presumption under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and its importance in the controversy, the usual mode of proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned, all of which have to be taken into account. It is only when all these matters are duly considered that an adverse inference can be drawn against the party. 28. The High Court held that even though the appellants alleged that the footage of CCTV is being concealed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the accused did not invoke Section 233 Cr.P.C. and they did not make any application for production of CCTV camera footage. The High Court further observed that the accused were not able to discredit the testimony of PW-1, PW-12 and PW-13 qua there being no relevant material in the CCTV camera footage. Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, prosecution in possession of the best evidence-CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.” 20. The investigation in this case tells a very sorry state of affairs. Admittedly, blood samples and hair were collected from the scene of crime. The investigation in this case tells a very sorry state of affairs. Admittedly, blood samples and hair were collected from the scene of crime. Thereafter, blood stained cloths of the accused were also collected by the Investigating Agency, yet the admitted case is that these were never sent to FSL for forensic examination. The video cassette, wherein the demonstration allegedly done by the accused showing as to how he had committed the murder of the crime, was recorded, but was never produced before the court. The hair of the deceased as well as the accused were collected but were never sent for forensic examination. 21. Admittedly, the incident had happened inside the Bishop’s House where the person, who was a high-ranking priest, resided. There is definitely clear evidence to show that the accused was present at the place of occurrence at the time when the incident allegedly took place. He was seen in the Bishop’s House on the night of the occurrence as well as in the next morning and there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the crime was committed between this period, i.e. between 9.15 P.M. and the next morning. In spite of this, the chain of events, as required, has to be completed, which in the present case is not complete. In a case of circumstantial evidence motive is an important factor, which seems to be missing in the present case. Although the prosecution has tried to show that the accused was attached to Guwahati Diocese and he wanted to settle down at Tezpur by opening an “Ashram” and the deceased, being the Vicar General was in a very important position in granting permission to open the “Ashram” and since the accused did not get favourable response from the deceased, he killed the deceased out of anger and frustration. This, to our mind, cannot be a reason for committing a crime as heinous as murder. The other reason assigned by the trial court was that the murder was definitely committed by someone who was ‘in house’ in the Bishop’s House at the relevant time, because there were four watchdogs in the Bishop’s House but the dogs never raised alarm. This again falls in the area of conjectures and there is nothing definite in this regard. What could have been clinching piece of evidence was the forensic report, had it have been on record. This again falls in the area of conjectures and there is nothing definite in this regard. What could have been clinching piece of evidence was the forensic report, had it have been on record. This has, however, never been placed before the court. Again, the blood stained cloths, which had been seized from the room of the accused and the blood stains, which had been collected from the crime scene, were never sent for forensic examination. The video graph cassette, wherein allegedly the demonstration done by the accused was recorded, has not been presented before the court. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 22. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the accused/appellant is liable to be given the benefit of doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.03.2016, passed by the trial court, i.e. the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2007 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant, namely, Father Thomas Ekka, who is presently in jail, shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case subject to sufficient compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. 23. The Registrar General is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the concerned jail authority so that the accused is released.