JUDGMENT : Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. Heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, East Sessions Division, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No.93/CLG/2014. By the impugned judgment, the trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. On 10.03.2014 at about 6 P.M., late Joshi Mura, aged about 40 years, went to the house of Smti. Rupa Mura in order to attend a religious function. That day, she did not return home. Next day, i.e. on 11.03.2014 at about 12 noon, Shri Amit Mura, the son of late Joshi Mura, discovered her dead body, which was lying in an agricultural field near Kusum Pathar Shiv Mandir. Amit Mura noticed that the dead body of his mother had some injuries also. Amit Mura came to know that his mother was returning home on the previous night along with the present appellant (Shri Gomia Mora) who hailed to the same village. The appellant was found missing. 4. That day, Amit Mura immediately lodged the FIR before police narrating the aforesaid facts. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem examination. The doctor found the following injuries upon the dead body- “1. There was scalp haematoma on the left temporal region. 2. Bleedings from both the ears. 3. There was intra cranium haematoma over left temporal lobe. 4. Sub-dural haematoma over the temporal lobe. 5. Contusion on neck on both side and front measuring 7 cm X 3 cm. 6. Contusion over left shoulder joint. 7. Rigormortis fully developed and fixed. 8. Skin peeling off seen over left axilla (arms pit), right forearm, left iliac region (hip bone), right knee and left knee. 9. Haematoma on large intestine measuring 5 cm X 4 cm. 10. Bruise over left shoulder joint measuring 5 cm X 3 cm.” The doctor opined that the death was due to subdural haematoma and intra-cerebral haematoma caused by blunt object on the head. 5. Police arrested the appellant on 03.06.2014. He gave a confessional statement under section 164 of the CrPC. 10. Bruise over left shoulder joint measuring 5 cm X 3 cm.” The doctor opined that the death was due to subdural haematoma and intra-cerebral haematoma caused by blunt object on the head. 5. Police arrested the appellant on 03.06.2014. He gave a confessional statement under section 164 of the CrPC. His statement reads like this- “On 10/03/2014 at about 2.30 PM I met my aunty Smti Late Joshi Mura in DOHA Party (Death Ceremony) at the residence of Shri Rupa Mura, village Dibrujan and after there for 10(ten) minutes we went out to the residence of Shri Binod in search of wine. There we got 1(one) bottle local made wine of GUR/RICE. We shared the wine and at around 8.25 pm we left for home. While going for home on way she asked me for Rs. 100/-to have wine. I refused to pay her and on refusal she slap me hard on my face. Out of raged (anger) by her slap and intoxication I pulled down her to the ground and then raped her. After the rape she said to tell it to villagers and public which irritates me more and I strangulated her to death by the white towel carried with her. Thereafter, I went to my sister’s house, Smti Lodhi, village Khoriajan.” 6. Finally, police filed the charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC. 7. In order to prove the offences against the appellant, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination and the police investigating officer. The appellant did not examine any witnesses. 8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the impugned finding. 9. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. We also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 10. The first witness to be examined is Smti. Pilki Mura. She knows the appellant as because at one point of time he used to reside in her village. She has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence, she was helping Rupa Mura in her house and the deceased was also helping Rupa Mura while solemnizing the religious function. Pilki Mura. She knows the appellant as because at one point of time he used to reside in her village. She has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence, she was helping Rupa Mura in her house and the deceased was also helping Rupa Mura while solemnizing the religious function. She further disclosed that in the evening at about 7.30 P.M. on the day of occurrence, the deceased requested her to give company while she would be returning home. Pilki Mura agreed and accordingly she along with the deceased and the appellant came out of the house of Rupa Mura. Pilki Mura has stated that while coming together, they stopped for purchasing liquor and all of them consumed liquor together. Pilki Mura has stated that as she reached her house first and therefore she went home leaving the appellant and the deceased who continued to walk. Next day, Pilki Mura went to the house of Rupa Mura and there she came to know about the death of the deceased. Pilki Mura had gone to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. 11. In her cross-examination, Pilki Mura has stated that on the day of occurrence, the appellant had purchased the liquor and that too, at the insistence of the deceased. Pilki Mura further stated that after consuming liquor, both the deceased and the appellant became inebriated. According to Pilki Mura, the appellant and the deceased were relatives and they were like brother and sister. Pilki Mura has stated that when she went to see the dead body of the deceased, she did not go near the dead body and therefore, she could not notice injury marks upon the dead body. 12. The second prosecution witness is the informant Amit Mura. He has stated that the appellant is like his uncle from his mother’s side. Amit Mura has stated that when he heard that his mother’s dead body was lying in the paddy field near Shiv Mandir, he immediately went there and saw the dead body. Amit Mura has stated that the clothes upon the dead body of his mother were pulled upwards and the lower part of the body was lying exposed. According to Amit Mura, it was Pilki Mura who told him that she along with the deceased and the appellant were coming together before Pilki Mura had reached her house. Amit Mura has stated that the clothes upon the dead body of his mother were pulled upwards and the lower part of the body was lying exposed. According to Amit Mura, it was Pilki Mura who told him that she along with the deceased and the appellant were coming together before Pilki Mura had reached her house. Amit Mura has stated that he searched for the appellant but could not find him and thereafter he went to the police station to lodge the FIR. 13. In his cross-examination, Amit Mura had stated that the FIR i.e. the P.Ext.1 was drafted by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station and it was not read over to him. Amit Mura disclosed that the appellant and his mother had a brother-sister relation. According to Amit Mura, he did not have any knowledge about the contents of the FIR. 14. The third prosecution witness is Agnu Mura. He has stated that the appellant hailed from his village. Agnu Mura has stated that he also attended the function that was held in the house of Rupa Mura. He had seen the deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant in the house of Rupa Mura on that day. According to this witness, the deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant left the house of Rupa Mura together and they had entered into another house to drink liquor. Agnu Mura had disclosed that Pilki Mura had told him that the appellant and the deceased went home together. According to Agnu Mura, next day the dead body of the deceased was found and the appellant was missing from the village. The appellant was missing for about two months. 15. Agnu Mura was not cross-examined by the appellant. 16. Shri Phukan Mura is the next witness. He is the husband of the deceased. He has stated that the appellant was his relative from the side of his wife. He has stated in his evidence that on 10th March, 2014 at about 3 P.M. he went to the house of Rupa Mura to attend the religious ritual. Phukan Mura has stated that after taking food he left the house of Rupa Mura after asking his wife i.e. the deceased to come home with Pilki Mura. According to Phukan Mura, Pilki Mura is the mother-in-law of his son. Phukan Mura has stated that after taking food he left the house of Rupa Mura after asking his wife i.e. the deceased to come home with Pilki Mura. According to Phukan Mura, Pilki Mura is the mother-in-law of his son. Phukan Mura has disclosed that after leaving the house of Rupa Mura he had gone to a market and while he was still in the market, it became dark. Therefore, Phukan Mura came back to the house of Rupa Mura to take back his wife home. But Phukan Mura found that his wife had already left that place. Phukan Mura returned home to find that his wife did not reach home. Phukan Mura has stated that he presumed that because of darkness, his wife might have stayed back in the house of Pilki Mura. Phukan Mura has further stated that there were small children in the house, therefore, he did not go out of the house in search of his wife. Phukan Mura has stated that next morning at about 7 A.M. he again went to the house of Rupa Mura but he could not find his wife there. At that time, one person called Lal Mura informed him that he should come with him to see something and in this way, Phukan Mura found the dead body of his wife. Phukan Mura told that Pilki Mura informed him that on the day of occurrence, she along with the deceased and the appellant came together from the house of Rupa Mura and had liquor together in the house of Binod Mech. Rupa Mura also told him that from the house of Binod Mech they came out together and when she reached her house, the appellant and the deceased together continued their journey home. 17. The witness Phukan Mura was not cross-examined. 18. The witness Solung Miji is the Judicial Magistrate before whom the appellant gave the confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the confessional statement as P.Ext.2. 19. The witness Solung Miji has stated in his cross-examination that before recording the confessional statement of the appellant, he gave sufficient of reflection. 20. Dr. Gumlat Ong is the doctor who had conducted post mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased. He has proved his report as P.Ext.3. 21. In his cross-examination, Dr. 19. The witness Solung Miji has stated in his cross-examination that before recording the confessional statement of the appellant, he gave sufficient of reflection. 20. Dr. Gumlat Ong is the doctor who had conducted post mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased. He has proved his report as P.Ext.3. 21. In his cross-examination, Dr. Ong has stated that he did not find any injuries in the private parts of the deceased. 22. The last prosecution witness to be examined is Sri S.K. Singh who is the police investigating officer. He also filed the charge sheet against the appellant. He spoke about his investigation. Sri Singh has stated that on 03.06.2014 he had arrested the appellant. 23. In his cross-examination, Shri Singh has stated that on 10.03.2014 the incident took place at night. Shri Singh has further stated that the occurrence might have taken place between 9 to 12 at night. He also stated that the appellant had consensual sex with the deceased. 24. We find that that are no discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Moreover, there are no eye witnesses in this case. The question that arises is as to whether the offences are proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt? So far as the evaluation, of the evidence in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, is concerned, the principles thereof are laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) as under-- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 25. The principles, on which circumstantial evidence and its probative value has to be tested, stand authoritatively laid down in G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 8 SCC 593 , wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows:- "22. The evidence tendered in a court of law is either direct or circumstantial. Evidence is said to be direct if it consists of an eyewitness account of the facts in issue in a criminal case. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is not derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do not". 23. In cases where 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. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. 24. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. 24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. 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, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court." 26. There is another aspect of the matter. In a case resting only on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. The question is whether absence of motive is sufficient to reject the prosecution case. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626 , the Supreme Court has dealt with this question. Paragraph 27 and 30 of the said judgment are quoted as under:- “27. Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The motive relied on by the prosecution is the ill-treatment by the appellant meted out to the deceased for not arranging the money from her mother. In this respect, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW 3 Anandi, mother of the deceased. The motive relied on by the prosecution is the ill-treatment by the appellant meted out to the deceased for not arranging the money from her mother. In this respect, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW 3 Anandi, mother of the deceased. It will be relevant to refer to the cross-examination of the said witness: “… The accused and the deceased had been to my house and stayed for four days few days prior to the incident.…” 30. It will be relevant to refer to a recent judgment of this Court in [Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395] : (SCC p. 190, para 24). “24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in [Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60] that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179], absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25 and 26, it is observed and held as under : (Babu case [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179], SCC pp. 200-01) ‘25. In [State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, (2008) 16 SCC 73 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 182] , this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed : (SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39) “38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. 39. 87-88, paras 38-39) “38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. 39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.” 26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (Vide [Pannayar v. State of T.N., (2009) 9 SCC 152 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 638 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1480] )’” 27. Reverting to the case in hand, the circumstances appearing against the appellant can be categorized as under:- i) The deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant had attended the religious ritual held in the house of Rupa Mura. ii) The deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant had left the house of Rupa Mura together. iii) The deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant had entered into the house of Binod Mech to have liquor. iv) The deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant came out together from the house of Binod Mech. v) The deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant together went home. iv) Pilki Mura reached her house first. Therefore, she went into her house and the deceased together with the appellant went home. vii) That day, the deceased did not reach home. viii) Next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a field. v) The deceased, Pilki Mura and the appellant together went home. iv) Pilki Mura reached her house first. Therefore, she went into her house and the deceased together with the appellant went home. vii) That day, the deceased did not reach home. viii) Next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a field. ix) The doctor who conducted post mortem examination upon the deceased, found injury marks upon the dead body and the doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to subdural haematoma and intra cerebral haematoma caused by blunt object on the head. The doctor further stated that the blunt object could be a stick or punches. 28. There is no doubt that the deceased and the appellant was last seen together. The doctrine of last seen together, if proved, shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, placing on him the onus to explain how the incident occurred and what happened to the victim who was last seen with him if the accused fails to explain that, it would give rise to a strong presumption against him and in favour of his guilt and would provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances. 29. We have already held that the prosecution evidence does not have any contradictions and discrepancies. The prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and reliable. So, it is proved that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased. So, the onus shifts upon the appellant to explain as to what happed with the deceased. The appellant failed to offer any explanation to that effect. 30. Now, we are of the opinion that the chain of circumstances is complete. All the circumstances appearing against the appellant are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 31. Regarding the confessional statement, it is a settled position of law that such a statement on its own does not prove an offence against an accused in a criminal case. It is the prosecution side which has the duty to prove an offence against an accused. A confessional statement amounts to an additional circumstance in the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant. 32. Under the aforesaid premise reasons, we hereby hold that the learned trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. A confessional statement amounts to an additional circumstance in the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant. 32. Under the aforesaid premise reasons, we hereby hold that the learned trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Under the aforesaid circumstances the present appeal is found to be devoid of merits and stands dismissed accordingly. 33. We record our appreciation for the learned Amicus Curiae for assisting this Court. The remuneration allowed by the rules shall be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae. Send back the LCR.