JUDGMENT : (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tabla Ansari, Vilash Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Anwar Ansari, Mangan Ansari and Karu Ansari were named as accused in Pathargama (Basantrai) PS Case No. 95 of 2008 which was lodged by Md. Nazam Ansari on the allegation that the accused abducted his daughter in the intervening night of 01/02.06.2008, killed her and tried to conceal the crime by disposing her dead body in the well. 2. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 02.06.2008 at about 11:30 AM by Sidheshwar Sawaiyan who was posted as ASI at Basantrai OP, Nazam Ansari has stated that his younger son Sakir Ansari informed him that the accused abducted Imrana Khatoon from Bahiyar where he had gone with her to ease himself. The informant was not at home at that time and when he came back home after making dish (poori) in the house of Md. Rafique his son gave this information to him, whereupon he had gone to the house of Md. Tabaraque Ansari and searched his daughter in the night but she was not found. Next morning, alarm was raised in the village that a dead body was found in the well of Suleman Ansari who was on inimical terms with him. The body was taken out from the well and he identified his dead daughter whose neck was slitted. His fardbeyan was recorded in the village and the police after conducting inquest sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The informant has further stated that in the recent past the accused were threatening to kill one member of his family. 3. After the investigation, Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari and Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari were sent up for trial while the investigation against other accused remained pending. Through a supplementary charge-sheet dated 31.12.2008, Mangan Ansari, Anwar Ansari and Gyas Ansari @ Vilash Ansari were also sent up for trial. After cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Mangan Ansari and Anwar Ansari absconded and accordingly the case records were split up on 01.07.2009. From the records, it appears that the other accused also absconded at some point in time and they faced the trial separately. After cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Mangan Ansari and Anwar Ansari absconded and accordingly the case records were split up on 01.07.2009. From the records, it appears that the other accused also absconded at some point in time and they faced the trial separately. Anwar Ansari was apprehended in the year 2012 and charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against him by order dated 13.06.2012 – sessions trial against him was renumbered as 01/2012. In the meantime, Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2009 / 400 of 2009 came to be concluded and vide judgment dated 18.02.2010 Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari and Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari were convicted and sentenced under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009 ended in conviction of Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari, the appellant, by a judgment dated 22.02.2017. 5. At one point in time this criminal appeal was listed along with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2015 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 262 of 2010 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 830 of 2010. The other three criminal appeals were heard together but we have written separate judgments, as we have to do in this case also, for the reason that all the six accused faced trial in four separate sessions cases and the learned Sessions Judges have delivered separate judgments. Another reason is that even though the material witnesses have tendered similar evidence in the trial in all sessions cases the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution has varied – in Sessions Trial Case No. 27 of 2009/400 of 2009 the Investigating Officer was not examined. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination was not produced by the prosecution in any sessions trial. From perusal of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009, we gather that Dr. Digvijay Kumar who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Imrana Khatoon passed away on 16.12.2008. 6. In the present case also similar charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against Gyas Ali Ansari for committing murder of Imrana Khatoon in furtherance of common intention and causing disappearance of her dead body. 6. In the present case also similar charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against Gyas Ali Ansari for committing murder of Imrana Khatoon in furtherance of common intention and causing disappearance of her dead body. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses to prove the charges framed against Gyas Ali Ansari vide order dated 26.08.2009. PW1 Bibi Khairul is the mother, PW3 Sakir Ansari is the brother, PW4 Md. Tabaraque Ansari is the grandfather and PW6 Nazam Ansari is the father of Imrana Khatoon who have deposed in the Court regarding her abduction and murder, and cause of animosity with the accused. The postmortem report prepared by Dr. Digvijay Kumar was laid in evidence through Shyamakant Yadav who was working in Sadar Hospital, Godda. The learned Trial Judge has indicated in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment under challenge that original copy of fardbeyan, inquest report and formal FIR were attached with the records of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 262 of 2010 pending in the High Court and we do not find any objection by the defence as regards absence of original copies of the fardbeyan, inquest report and formal FIR – the photocopies of these document were laid in evidence without objection. After the prosecution examined its witnesses the accused was examined on 10.07.2015 under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009, Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari, the appellant, was convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and RI for four years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to suffer RI for two months. 8. The appellant is in appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of his conviction in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009. 9. In the present case, Sakir Ansari was examined in the Court on 31.08.2010 and at that time he was a student of Class-III. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that Sakir Ansari was not competent to give evidence at that time and that his testimony is tainted with malice. The judgment in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 830 of 2010 with Cr. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that Sakir Ansari was not competent to give evidence at that time and that his testimony is tainted with malice. The judgment in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 830 of 2010 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 262 of 2010 indicates that a similar plea was raised as regards competence of Sakir Ansari to testify the facts leading to murder of Imrana Khatoon and we have dealt with this issue, thus: “5. In the common law countries the children were considered to be able to understand that “they would burn in the eternal fires of hell” if they would lie under oath and, therefore, a child witness was permitted to testify under oath. Some authors however expressed serious concern regarding capacity of a child witness to depose in a criminal trial. Bentham said that “children are undeserving of confidence and incapable of discernment”. Lord Morris [“D.P.P. v. Hester” (1973) AC 296] has observed that children's testimony is of a kind requiring corroboration as children may be unable to appreciate the gulf separating truth and falsehood “owing to immaturity or perhaps to lively imaginative gifts”. In Wallwork [“R. v. Wallwork” 1958 42 CR App R. 153] a child five years of age was not considered competent to give evidence in the Court. But half a century before that, Brewer, J. held that a boy five years of age is not as a matter of law absolutely disqualified as a witness. [“Wheeler v. United States” 159 U.S. 523 (1895)]. 6. In India the law is very clear and admits no ambiguity. Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a witness shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender years, extreme old age, and disease whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. In “Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka” [ (2001) 9 SCC 129 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the Court as a rule of prudence is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability base conviction by accepting statement of a child witness. 7. 7. The testimony of PW5 is doubted on the ground of his intimate relation with Imrana Khatoon. The enmity between the parties is another reason we are required to scrutinize evidence of PW5 keeping in mind probability of false implication. But evidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because the witness is a close relative, and all that is required is to scrutinize testimony of the related witnesses with a little care. We would keep in mind the aforesaid rule of caution and scrutinize testimony of PW5 whether he is a truthful and reliable witness.” 10. By the time, Sakir Ansari was examined as PW3 in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009, he gained more maturity as would appear from his answer to the Court's query. He has deposed in the Court that about two and half years ago he had gone in the field (Bahiyar) with his sister in the night to ease himself. At that time, Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari, Anwar Ansari, Mangan Ansari, Gyas Ansari @ Vilash Ansari came there, put cloth in the mouth of his sister and forcibly took her away. He was frightened and ran home to call his father. He has further stated that in spite of search in the night his sister was not found and next morning her dead body was found in the well of Suleman Ansari – he has seen cut injury over neck of his sister. Quite naturally, this witness has identified Gyas Ali Ansari in the dock. 11. PW3, Sakir Ansari has stated the following facts in his examination-in-chief : “(i) eS ntkZ 3 esa i<+rk gw¡A eSa xokgh nsus vk;k gw¡A This witness is competent to understand the facts of this case. (ii) vkt ls 2½ lky iwoZ dh ?kVuk gS fnu jfookj dk FkkA jkf= 2 cts dk le; FkkA eSa rFkk esjh cgu 'kkSp gsrq [ksr ds rjQ xbZ FkhA eSa fnoky ds ckn cSBk FkkA og eq>ls 15 gkFk nwj FkhA vrkmy] lqyseku] dk:y] X;klqnhu] eaxuk vuoj vk;sA os esjs cgu ds eqag esa nqiVk Bql dj cfg;kj ds rjQ ys x;sA eSa Mj x;k Fkk eS vius ikik dks cqykus x;kA [kkstchu fd;k rks cgu ugha feyhA lqcg ns[ks fd yk'k lqyseku ds dqavk esa FkhA mldk xyk dVk FkkA X;kl vHkh gkftj gSA ENGLISH TRANSLATION: (i) I study in Class-3. I have come to give evidence, This witness is competent to understand the facts of this case. (ii) This occurrence took place 2 ½ years ago. It was a Sunday. It was 02:00 O’clock in night. I alongwith my sister went towards the field to attend nature call. I was sitting near the wall. She was 15 yards (hands) away from me. Ataul, Suleman, Karul, Gyasuddin, Mangna and Anwar came there. They put cloth in the mouth of my sister and took away her towards Bahiyar (field). I was scared. I went to call my father. We searched but my sister was not found. Next morning I saw that the dead body was in the well of Suleman. Her neck was cut. Gyas Ali is present.” 12. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that testimony of the solitary eyewitness is not corroborated by other independent evidence and considering the admitted enmity between the parties conviction of the appellant on the basis of his testimony was not proper. 13. It appears from cross-examination of PW3 that the defence challenged the presence of Imrana Khatoon in her parental home. It further appears in his cross-examination that the defence raised suspicion over his testimony on the ground that his elder brother who was at home was the most natural person who could have accompanied him to Bahiyar and not his sister. 14. PW3 who has admitted animosity with the family of Suleman Ansari and presence of his elder brother in the fateful night is a truthful witness. It is not uncommon that a minor child would be close to female folks in the family and therefore it is not unnatural that in the night PW3 has asked his elder sister to accompany him to the Bahiyar. PW3 has clarified in his cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence Imrana Khatoon was staying in her parents' house because by that time she was not married. The defence has not challenged other parts of his testimony and except setting up a plea that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case on account of animosity with the informant, we do not find any other material on record to accept this plea. The defence has not challenged other parts of his testimony and except setting up a plea that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case on account of animosity with the informant, we do not find any other material on record to accept this plea. The testimony of PW3 has been challenged by the defence with reference to statement of PW4 and PW6 as regards at what time the informant came back home and started search for his daughter. PW4 has stated in the Court that at about 02:00 AM in the night of 01.06.2008 Sakir Ansari and Nazam Ansari came to his house and Sakir Ansari narrated the entire episode to him. PW6 has stated that it was around 01:30-02:00 AM in the night when he came back home from the house of Md. Rafique after making dish and his son informed him about abduction of Imrana Khatoon by Tabla Ansari, Vilash Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Anwar Ansari, Mangan Ansari and Karu Ansari. The aforesaid statements of PW4 and PW6 are relevant and usable by the prosecution (section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act). 15. With reference to the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96A of 2009 in respect of Mangan Ansari the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW3 is not a reliable witness. We have dealt with and rejected this argument in the judgment delivered in Cr. Appeal No. 830 of 2010 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 262 of 2010 for the following reason: “10. Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for Suleman Ansari has referred to the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96A of 2009 against co-accused Mangan Ansari, in which Md. Nazam Ansari, Saukat Ansari and all other material witnesses have turned hostile, to impress upon us that PW5 is not a trustworthy witness. We are afraid that we can look into the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96A of 2009 to hold that PW5 is not a trustworthy witness. During his examination in the present case, PW5 was not confronted with his statement made therein and, in fact, the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96A of 2009 was not delivered by that time and, thus, he was not afforded an opportunity to explain the reason why he turned hostile in the said sessions trial.” 16. During his examination in the present case, PW5 was not confronted with his statement made therein and, in fact, the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96A of 2009 was not delivered by that time and, thus, he was not afforded an opportunity to explain the reason why he turned hostile in the said sessions trial.” 16. On the information of Sakir Ansari, the appellant was named by the informant as an accused in the First Information Report. Sakir Ansari has testified in the Court that the appellant was one among six accused who abducted his sister from Bahiyar and he has identified all the accused including the appellant in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stuck to his statement in the examination-in-chief wherein he is specific about coming of Tabla Ansari, Vilash Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Anwar Ansari, Mangan Ansari and Karu Ansari in Bahiyar and forcibly taking away of his sister by them. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it would be highly dangerous to act upon testimony of solitary eyewitness to convict the appellant for murder of Imrana Khatoon. 18. In “Darya Singh v. State of Punjab” AIR 1965 SC 328 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the rule of caution which requires corroboration to evidence of the interested witnesses cannot be treated as an inflexible principle which can be applied mechanically to all cases. Indeed, there is no law of universal application that testimony of a child witness cannot be acted upon without corroboration rather the law is well settled that on the basis of the evidence of solitary eyewitness, even though he is a child witness, conviction can be recorded. 19. We would profitably refer to the judgments in “Mohamed Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v. King” 1945 SCC Online Privy Council 38 and “State of UP v. Ashok Dixit and Another” (2000) 3 SCC 70 and follow a safer path to find out whether there is any independent evidence to support Sakir Ansari on the core of the prosecution case. 20. PW1 who is the mother of Imrana Khatoon has deposed in the Court about two years after the occurrence. She has fully supported the prosecution case. She has stated that she was in the house of her sister-in-law at village Nandgola where she was informed by her younger son about abduction and murder of her daughter. 20. PW1 who is the mother of Imrana Khatoon has deposed in the Court about two years after the occurrence. She has fully supported the prosecution case. She has stated that she was in the house of her sister-in-law at village Nandgola where she was informed by her younger son about abduction and murder of her daughter. When she came home her son narrated the entire incident to her. She has admitted that there was previous enmity with Suleman Ansari and the other accused. PW4, Md. Tabaraque Ansari has admitted in the Court that the informant was his nephew and Sakir Ansari, his grandson, gave information to him about abduction of Imrana Khatoon in the night of 01.06.2008. This part of the evidence of PW4 is a kind of res gastae evidence and also relevant under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus usable by the prosecution to support its case. PW4 has further stated that next morning dead body of Imrana Khatoon was recovered from the well of Suleman Ansari. PW5, Sultan Ansari is a hearsay witness who has deposed in the Court that he heard about complicity of Tabla Ansari, Vilash Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Anwar Ansari, Mangan Ansari and Karu Ansari in the occurrence. PW6, the informant has narrated the story in the Court in the same manner as he described in his fardbeyan. 21. The minor inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are picked up by Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant to submit that the prosecution evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. We, however, do not see any such inconsistency, exaggeration or improvement in testimony of the prosecution witnesses so as to discard their evidence. 22. In the present case, the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda has dealt with this aspect of the case in the following manner: 18. Apart from the aforesaid fact all the witnesses are hailing from rural area and they are ignorant and rustic person and it cannot be accepted that the FIR was lodged after thought within such a short period. Testimony of the witnesses Sakir Ansari(PW 3). Najam Ansari(PW 6), Bibi Khairun (PW 1) and Tabaraque Ansari (PW 4) appears to be quite natural and genuine and in my opinion it will be unreasonable to reject their evidence merely on the basis of some omission and strained relationship. Testimony of the witnesses Sakir Ansari(PW 3). Najam Ansari(PW 6), Bibi Khairun (PW 1) and Tabaraque Ansari (PW 4) appears to be quite natural and genuine and in my opinion it will be unreasonable to reject their evidence merely on the basis of some omission and strained relationship. The witnesses indicate truth rather than falsehood of their version Village peoples have little idea of time and distance. The evidence of village folk cannot be taken with an exactitude regarding time and distance 19. Postmortem examination report (Ext. 1) also goes to show that in course of his postmortem examination the doctor has found antemortem injury i.e. lacerated wound cut injury of size 4" x ½" x deep up to adverting surface of the vertebral column cutting across the throat below to the level of larynx. Blood vessels of adverting of neck are severely damaged. The said antemortem injury is fully consistent with the oral testimony of the informant Nazam Ansari (PW 6) & other witnesses and with the facts of fard beyan of the informant The doctor has also opined that cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the aforesaid antemortem injury and time elapsed since death was within 24-36 hours which is also fully consistent and matching with the evidence of PW 6 Najam Ansari, PW 3 Sakir Ansari and PW 5 Sultan Ansari. 20. After perusal of the whole evidence of the prosecution, I do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 3 Sakir Ansari, Nazam Ansari (PW 6). 20. After perusal of the whole evidence of the prosecution, I do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 3 Sakir Ansari, Nazam Ansari (PW 6). Tabarque (PW 4) & Sultan Ansan (PW 5) Evidences of the prosecution witnesses appears to be natural, trustworthy and free from any vital infirmity and in my considered opinion evidence of the prosecution witnesses gives ring of truth and in my view prosecution has firmly established each circumstance by clinching evidence and circumstances established by the prosecution are forming a complete chain of events leading irresistible conclusion that this is the accused namely, Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari who had committed murder of the deceased Imrana Khatoon and threw her dead body into the well with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment with the common intention of all with giving no room to any other hypothesis and facts and circumstances established by the prosecution are quite consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person and inconsistent with his innocence. 21. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances having given anxious and deepest consideration of the evidence placed on the record and also contentions raised at Bar, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has led positive, convincing and credible ocular evidence to prove the participation of the accused in commission of murder of deceased Imrana Khatoon and story disclosed by the prosecution witnesses strikes to be genuine and I see ring of truth in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and I am of the considered view that the prosecution has led cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence to bring home charges U/ss 302/34 & 201/34 IPC levelled against the accused Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari and in view of the matter, I find him guilty U/ss 302/34 & 201/34 IPC and convicting him accordingly. The accused Gyas Ali Ansari @ Bilash Ansari is languishing in jail. The ld. Counsel submitted that case may be adjourned for 25.02.2017 for hearing on the point of sentence. Bench Clerk is directed to put the case record on 25.02.2017 for hearing on the point of sentence. The convict Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari is sent back to jail till the date fixed.” 23. In Cr. The ld. Counsel submitted that case may be adjourned for 25.02.2017 for hearing on the point of sentence. Bench Clerk is directed to put the case record on 25.02.2017 for hearing on the point of sentence. The convict Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari is sent back to jail till the date fixed.” 23. In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2015, in which a similar plea was raised by the appellant “Anwar Ansari”, we have observed thus: “21. It is well-settled that in the evidence of prosecution witnesses some inconsistencies, exaggerations, improvements omissions and embellishments are bound to happen and on the ground of minor lapses in the testimony of a witness his evidence cannot be discarded in toto. 22. In “Leela Ram v. State of Haryana” [ (1999)9 SCC 525 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “9. ....... There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.....” 23. In “Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana” [ (2013)14 SCC 434 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “24. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, unless irrelevant, details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus, the court must read the evidence of a witness as a whole, and consider the case in light of the entirety of the circumstances, ignoring the minor discrepancies with respect to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution. The said discrepancies as mentioned above, should not be taken into consideration, as they cannot form grounds for rejecting the evidence on record as a whole. (See State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, State v. Saravanan and Vijay v. State of M.P.)” 24. The prosecution has established that Imrana Khatoon was last seen alive in the night of 01.06.2008 in Bahiyar from where the accused forcibly abducted her and next morning a dead body was found in the well of Suleman Ansari. 25. In “Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab” (2001) 4 SCC 375 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “15. The abductors alone could tell the court as to what happened to the deceased after they were abducted. When the abductors withheld that information from the court there is every justification for drawing the inference, in the light of all the preceding and succeeding circumstances adverted to above, that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased.” 26. PW3 has named the appellant and identified him along with others as the abductors. No witness has seen how and where Imrana Khatoon was murdered. These facts were within exclusive knowledge of the accused and it was almost impossible for the investigating officer to unearth these facts. The circumstance that the dead body of Imrana Khatoon was found in the well of Suleman Ansari by itself may not be an incriminating circumstance, but in the present case once her abduction is proved recovery of dead body from the well of co-accused Suleman Ansari would be another incriminating circumstance against him. The appellant who is facing the charge of murder is required in law to tell the Court as to what happened with Imrana Khatoon after her abduction, but he has failed to put forth any explanation to this highly incriminating material against him. 27. Mr. The appellant who is facing the charge of murder is required in law to tell the Court as to what happened with Imrana Khatoon after her abduction, but he has failed to put forth any explanation to this highly incriminating material against him. 27. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant would as a last ditch effort submit that conduct of Sakir Ansari who is the sole eyewitness and who alone can say how Imrana Khatoon went missing was highly unnatural and for that reason alone his testimony has been rendered suspect and liable to be discarded. It is further submitted that if testimony of Sakir Ansari is accepted as true there is no explanation by the prosecution why the informant and his family who were informed by Sakir Ansari about complicity of the appellant and others in abduction of Imrana Khatoon did not raise hulla in the village. 28. We summarily reject this argument for the reason that conduct of a witness per se is not a ground to disbelieve a witness. There was a reason that might have had a bearing in the mind of the informant and his family who did not raise hulla in the night. The informant on account of animosity with the family of Suleman Ansari whose daughter was married to the son of the informant against his wishes might not have raised hulla in the night due to fear of bloodshed. He might have thought prudent to first search for his daughter and, in fact, he visited his uncle the same night and started search for his daughter. 29. We would profitably extract relevant portion from the judgment in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 830 of 2010 wherein we have dealt with a similar argument, thus: 22. A child who has witnessed abduction of his sister by Suleman Ansari with whom his family was on litigating terms may not raise cries due to fear for his own life. The conduct of a witness is examined in the context of facts and circumstances of the case and it is almost impossible to predict reaction of a person, for different persons may react differently in similar situations. It is trite that merely because conduct of a witness may appear unnatural his testimony cannot be discarded. The conduct of a witness is examined in the context of facts and circumstances of the case and it is almost impossible to predict reaction of a person, for different persons may react differently in similar situations. It is trite that merely because conduct of a witness may appear unnatural his testimony cannot be discarded. In “Rana Partap v. State of Haryana” [ (1983) 3 SCC 327 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no set rule of natural reaction and to discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. The informant was informed about abduction of his daughter by Suleman Ansari and others when he came back home and soon thereafter he started search for his daughter with PW6. Normally a person would first approach his relative in such a situation which the informant did, and nothing much can be inferred from conduct of the informant in not raising hulla. 23. In “Leela Ram v. State of Haryana” [ (1999) 9 SCC 525 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “11. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.” [ (1999) 9 SCC 525 ] 24. Years after “Leela Ram” [ (1999) 9 SCC 525 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed similar views in “Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra” [ (2013) 6 SCC 417 )] thus : “26. ….. it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. ….. it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene and yet some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded.” 30. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hold that the incriminating circumstances are proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence and the chain of circumstances is so complete as to lead to an inescapable conclusion that the appellant was involved in abduction and murder of Imrana Khatoon. The learned Trial Judge has held that the prosecution has proved the charge of murder against Gyas Ali Ansari and we find no ground to interfere with the judgment delivered in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009. 31. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 497 of 2017 is dismissed. 32. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned Spl.PP states that the appellant is on bail by virtue of the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by this Court. 33. Accordingly, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant, namely, Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari are cancelled. He shall surrender in the Court concerned to serve the remaining sentence. 34. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 35. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.