JUDGMENT : SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 25/2013 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 10 days, life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 10 days and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 10 days, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.06.2012 at about 4 PM, the appellant herein along with two other co-accused persons namely Sarjuram and Jeeyanram, in furtherance of their common intention of causing death of Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi, aged about 8 years, abducted him for ransom but they caused his death by strangulating him and assaulting him with stone on his head and buried his dead body in order to screen themselves from the offence and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. 3. It is admitted position on record that appellant had married Kunti Bai (PW-6), daughter of Durpati Bai (PW-9) by choodi ceremony and deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was son-in-law of the appellant. Further case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2014, Durpati Bai (PW-9) lodged a report at Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg that appellant came to her house and told her that since she is not sending her daughter Kunti Bai (PW-6) with him, she must return the expense of Rs. 50000/- incurred by him. On 06.06.2012 at about 4 PM, her son Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi had gone towards the shop in Semariya on his cycle where the appellant was sitting and he took her son with him. On the basis of said information, first information report was lodged for offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC and the wheels of investigation started running. On 06.06.2012 at about 4 PM, her son Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi had gone towards the shop in Semariya on his cycle where the appellant was sitting and he took her son with him. On the basis of said information, first information report was lodged for offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC and the wheels of investigation started running. The appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/2 and on the basis of information given him, memorandum statements of co-accused persons namely Sarjuram and Jeeyanram was also recorded vide Ex.P/4 and P/5 pursuant to which seizure of one black coloured cycle was seized from the spot vide Ex.P/6, blood-stained soil and plain soil was seized vide Ex.P/7, green-coloured slippers belonging to the deceased and one heavy stone were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/8 and one cream coloured shirt worn by the appellant which was stained with blood was seized vide Ex.P/10. On 09.06.2012, permission was obtained from the Subdivisional Magistrate and thereafter, dead body of deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was exhumed and dehati merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/20. Nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/21 and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/1. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-3) and as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/16), cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to strangulation (throttling) and nature of death is said to be homicidal. The aforesaid seized articles were though sent for forensic examination but no FSL report has been brought on record. After due investigation, the appellant as well as two co-accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 364(A)/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessios for trial in accordance with law. The accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 31 documents. Statement of the appellant and co-accused persons was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt, however, they did not examine any one in their defence and brought on record only 3 documents. 5. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 31 documents. Statement of the appellant and co-accused persons was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt, however, they did not examine any one in their defence and brought on record only 3 documents. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi to be homicidal in nature though acquitted the two co-accused persons, however, convicted the appellant herein for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Suresh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in relying upon the testimony of Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2) and holding that prosecution has been able to prove the theory of last seen together. He would further submit that the trial Court has also committed illegality in holding that the dead body of deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant and he has failed to explain about the same in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. As such, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the theory of last seen together has duly been established by the prosecution and the dead body of deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi has been recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant which is a strong circumstance and has been found duly proved by the prosecution, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence finding it well-established. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down the five golden principles that constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, which state as under: “153. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence finding it well-established. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down the five golden principles that constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, which state 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. xxx xxx xxx (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of 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 prove. (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.” 10. In order to convict the appellant, the following incriminating circumstances have been put forth by the prosecution and they have been found proved by the trial Court, which state as under: ^^1- e`rd Hkksyk mQZ vtqZu ikj/kh dh e`R;q fnukad 06-06-2010 dks gR;kRed Ád`fr dh Fkh\ 2- vkjksih ccyk ikj/kh us viuh iRuh vŒlkŒ 6&dqUrh ckbZ ls vius ek¡ ds ?kj ls ckbd ysus ds fy, :i;k ykus dks dgrk vkSj :i;k ugha ykus ij mlds lkFk ekjihV djrk FkkA tks fd vijk/k dk gsrqd FkkA 3- e`rd Hkksyk mQZ vtqZu ikj/kh dh mez 8 o"kZ dks vkjksih ccyk ,oa vt; mQZ vaxwBh ds lkFk vafre ckj thfor voLFkk esa vŒlkŒ 2&v'ouh dkS'ky }kjk ns[kk x;k Fkk\ 4- vkjksih ccyk ikj/kh ds lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds rgr fy, x, dFku ds vk/kkj ij e`rd Hkksyk mQZ vt; ikj/kh dk 'ko muds crk;s gq, LFkku tksru HkjhZ [ksr ls cjken fd;k x;k gS\ 5- vkjksih ccyk ikj/kh ls tIr Øheh jax ds VsjhdksV ds Qwy 'kVZ esa e`rd Hkksyk mQZ vtqZu ikj/kh ds jDr ds /kCcs ik, x, gSa\** 11. We shall now consider the case of the appellant by going through the aforesaid incriminating circumstances one by one. Nature of Death of the deceased: 12. The first incriminating circumstance as to whether the death of deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was homicidal in nature has been found proved by the trial Court relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-3) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) in which cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to strangulation (throttling) and nature of death is said to be homicidal. Taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) as well as the statement of Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-3) and further considering the injuries suffered by the deceased on his neck as well as on his head, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased to be homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court more so when it has not even been slightly questioned by the trial Court. Motive of Offence: 13. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant had married Kunti Bai (PW-6) by performing choodi ceremony and he pressurized her to bring a bike for him after taking money from her mother and he also committed marpeet with her and since Kunti Bai (PW-6) failed to bring money, the appellant abducted her brother and caused his death by strangulating him. A careful perusal of statements of Kunti Bai (PW-6) and her father Lakhanram Pardhi (PW-7) would show that appellant had married Kunti Bai (PW-6) by performing choodi ceremony and thereafter, he had taken her to his house at village Sohagpur and after 15 days of marriage, he started pressurizing her to take money from her parents and buy him a bike. Kunti Bai's father Lakhanram (PW-7) has stated that deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi had been injured in a motor accident and they had been awarded compensation from the Court which they had deposited in the Bank. He has further stated that appellant pressurized his daughter Kunti Bai (PW-6) to bring him the money that they had received as compensation and since she did not do so, appellant abducted his son Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi and thereafter, caused his death. He has further stated that appellant pressurized his daughter Kunti Bai (PW-6) to bring him the money that they had received as compensation and since she did not do so, appellant abducted his son Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi and thereafter, caused his death. Both of these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve their version, as such, the trial Court has rightly held that motive of offence has been found proved against the appellant. Theory of Last Seen Together: 14. One of the main incriminating circumstances that has been found proved by the trial Court is that appellant and deceased were last seen together by Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2) and thereafter, Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi was found dead. Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2) has stated before the Court that he runs a cycle repairing shop in the village and appellant along with one co-accused had come to his shop at around 1 PM and they had taken one cycle from his shop on rent and a boy aged about 8-9 years was also with them. Thereafter, they came back to his shop at around 9 PM to return the cycle and at that time too, the boy was with them and after returning his cycle, they went towards village Sohagpur. Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2) has further stated that after 2-3 days, police had taken him somewhere between village Sohagpur and Chechanmata wherein the body of the child was exhumed in his presence and he had identified it. The trial Court itself has put the question to Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2) as to whether the boy that he had seen with the appellant was the one whose body was exhumed from Chechanmata Khar to which he has replied in affirmative. 15. In the matter of Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372 it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of theory of ‘last seen together’ and observed in paragraph 31 as under: “31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to though a number of witnesses have been examined be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.” 16. Likewise in the matter of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 the Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was observed in paragraph 34 as under: “34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case.” 17. Similarly in the matter of Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime and there must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. It has been held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under: “15. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. It has been held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under: “15. The theory of last seen - the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588. 16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused Kanhaiya Lal are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. He is directed to be released from the custody forthwith unless required otherwise.” 18. Finally in the matter of Anjan Kumar Sarma vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that in a case where other links have been satisfactorily made out and circumstances point to guilt of accused, circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In absence of proof of other circumstances the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made basis of conviction. 19. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments (supra), from the testimony of Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2), it is evident that deceased was last seen together with the appellant and thereafter, he went missing and then his dead body was exhumed after taking permission from the Subdivisional Magistrate vide Ex.P/27 and it has been proved by the Investigating Officer D.R. Gayakwad (PW-13) and it has been identified by Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2). As such, it has clearly been established that appellant had abducted the deceased from the cycle shop of Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2) and thereafter, he caused his death as the burden of proof was upon the appellant who could have clearly stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to what happened and what transpired with the deceased after he was last seen with the deceased but no such explanation has been provided by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the theory of last seen together has duly been proved by the prosecution. 20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 while dealing with a case where two persons were taken away by armed assailants from their house at night and their dead bodies, studded with gunshot injuries, were found next morning lying near their house and the abductors did not explain and furnish any information, which was within their exclusive knowledge as to what happened to the deceased therein after they were abducted. It was held that presumption can be drawn and the abductors were responsible for murder of the deceased therein and observed in Para-15, 18, 19 and 20 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. *** *** *** 18. Learned senior counsel contended that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended for the purpose of filling up the vacuum in prosecution evidence. He invited our attention to the observations made by the Privy Council in Attygalle and Another vs. The King, AIR 1936 PC 169 and also in Stephen Seneviratne vs. The King, AIR 1936 PC 289 . In fact the observations contained therein were considered by this Court in an early decision authored by Vivian Bose, J. in Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 . The statement of law made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid decision has been extracted by us in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (supra). The statement of law made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid decision has been extracted by us in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (supra). It is useful to extract a further portion of the observation made by us in the aforesaid decision: “33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. 20. We have seriously bestowed our consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned senior counsel. We only reiterate the legal principle adumbrated in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, AIR 1936 PC 169 that when more persons than one have abducted the victim, who was later murdered, it is within the legal province of the court to justifiably draw a presumption depending on the factual situation, that all the abductors are responsible for the murder. Section 34 of the IPC could be invoked for the aid to that end, unless any particular abductor satisfies the court with his explanation as to what else he did with the victim subsequently, i.e. whether he left his associates en-route or whether he dissuaded others from doing the extreme act etc. etc.” 21. Very recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Gopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 Live Law (SC) 120 by relying upon its earlier decisions in the matter of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623 and Satpal vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610 held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence furnishing or non-furnishing of explanation by accused would be very crucial fact and theory of last seen together as propounded by the prosecution has to be proved against him and observed in Para-6 and 9 as under: “6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him. *** *** *** 9. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him. *** *** *** 9. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible that though the last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death might have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.” 22. In view of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sucha Singh (supra) and Ram Gopal (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that appellant abducted the deceased and thereafter, caused his death as no explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been furnished by him as to what happened to the deceased after he was last seen together with the deceased by Ashwani Kaushal (PW-2). Furthermore, it has been established from the evidence available on record that the dead body of the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P/1 pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/2). 23. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 held that if an incriminating material is recovered pursuant to memorandum statement of accused, he is required to explain as to how else he came to know of such concealment and non-explanation is fatal to the accused and observed in Para-26 as under: “26. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was conceded by himself. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was conceded by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities me criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because accused is the only person who can Offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well justified course to be adopted by the criminal court mat the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act.” 24. The aforesaid principle of law laid down in Suresh (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2009 (14) SCC 582 . 25. Thereafter, in the matter of Arvind Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 11 SCC 1 this Court has observed as under: “88.........In the present case, the dead body was lying in a concealed place and that there was no possible explanation on behalf of the accused as to how the body came to be concealed at that particular place, when the prosecution evidence proves that the accused were near the place of recovery of dead body almost at the probable time of death.” 26. Reverting finally to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that in the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/2), he has disclosed that after murdering the deceased Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi, he buried his dead body in the field and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the spot as disclosed by the appellant vide Ex.P/1 after taking due permission from the Tahsildar M.R. Janghel (PW-8) and the appellant has failed to explain in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to how he came to know about the dead body, which he was required to explain in order to prove that he was not guilty of the offence. As such, the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who has abducted Bhola @ Arjun Pardhi and after causing his death by strangulating him, he buried his dead body and concealed it. Conclusion: 27. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the five golden principles to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sharadchand Birdichand Sarda (supra) have rightly been proved by the prosecution and it has been able to prove the appellant guilty of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 28. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.