JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant against impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Case No.80 of 2010/S.T. No.70 of 2013, whereby, the appellant had been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/342 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are that the informant—Tufaani Sheikh gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations, on 21st April, 2010, that his brother Israil Sheikh @ Bhagat Sheikh had borrowed money Rs.1000/- from Azad Sheikh and in lieu of the same had assured him to do labour for him. In the meantime his mother fell ill and his brother could not go to do labour. Two days ago from today (21st April, 2010) Azad Sheikh came to his house and demanded the money lent by him and his brother stated that same was spent in the treatment of his ailing mother and he would return the same. Azad Sheikh and his brother Mofijul Sheikh hurled abuse to his brother. His brother also asked him not to hurl abuse and told that he would return the money soon. The matter was pacified on that day. His brother Israil Sheikh went for labour to another place. On 21st April, 2010 at 2 o’ clock of day time, Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin Sheikh both came to the house of the informant and called his brother Israil Sheikh and they took him to reconsider the matter and they gave him stab wound and after committing murder Mofijuddin Sheikh fled away with blood stained knife. The persons of the locality attracted there. He and his family members also reached there and found his brother lying in pool of blood. Both Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin Sheikh had committed murder of his brother Sanaul Sheikh by giving knife blow. 3. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 99 of 2010 was registered on 21st April, 2010 with the police station Pakur under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin Sheikh. 3. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 99 of 2010 was registered on 21st April, 2010 with the police station Pakur under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Azad Sheikh and Mofijuddin Sheikh. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the same for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Pakur. 4. The court of Sessions Judge, Pakur transferred the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. The trial court framed charge against both the accused under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to all the accused, who denied the charge and claimed for trial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against both the accused persons in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Afjal Banu Bibi, P.W.2-Sarifa Khatoon, P.W.3-Md. Ajharuddin Sk., P.W.4-Tara Bewa, P.W.5-Sahdeo Mandal, P.W.6-Phulchand Mandal, P.W.7-Tufani Sheikh, P.W.8- Dr. Ashish Naval Tigga and P.W.9-Shaligram Kuwar. 6. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence Ext.1 is fard beyan, Ext.2 is postmortem report and Ext. 3 is formal F.I.R. 7. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances against them and stated them to be innocent. 8. The trial court vide judgment dated 8th February, 2013 acquitted the accused—Aazad Sheikh from the charge framed against him but convicted the accused—Mofijul Sk. @ Mofijuddin Sk for the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-. 9. The aforesaid convict being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th February, 2013 preferred present criminal appeal on the grounds that the impugned judgment of conviction is bad in the eyes of law and same has been passed on wrong appreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment is based on conjecture and surmises. The learned trial court did not consider the contradiction in the statements of the so called eyewitnesses. The appellant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. The impugned judgment is based on conjecture and surmises. The learned trial court did not consider the contradiction in the statements of the so called eyewitnesses. The appellant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. The knife used in commission of the murder was not recovered and same was not sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory to prove the case against the appellant. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the present criminal appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State of Jharkhand and perused the materials available on record. 11. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, we would like to re-appreciate the evidence on record, which are reproduced herein below : 12. P.W.-1 Afjal Banu Bibi in her examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of nine months ago. It was 2 o’ clock of day time and she returned to her house after having taken bath and saw Sanaul Sheikh who came to her house was assaulted by Mofijul Sheikh with the knife. He gave knife blow twice and hurled abuse and when she cried he also used abusive words to her. Two knife blows were given on his chest and another on his arm. Sanaul died at the spot and Mofijul fled away from there. She identified the accused in the dock. In cross-examination, this witness says that she and her daughter both saw Mofijul assaulting with knife to Sanaul, who died at the spot. Mofijul fled away along with the knife. 12.1 P.W.-2 Sarifa Khatoon in her examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of nine months ago from that day. It was 2 o’ clock of day time. She was cutting biri leaves in her Verandah and saw Mofijul assaulting to Sanaul with knife. Sanaul fell on the ground and Mofijul had given knife blow on his chest and back, who died at the spot. Mofijul was alone. She identified the accused Mofijul in the dock. In cross-examination, this witness says, Sanaul died in Verandah of her house. The alarm was raised and several persons and Tufani also came there. 12.2 P.W.-3 Md. Sanaul fell on the ground and Mofijul had given knife blow on his chest and back, who died at the spot. Mofijul was alone. She identified the accused Mofijul in the dock. In cross-examination, this witness says, Sanaul died in Verandah of her house. The alarm was raised and several persons and Tufani also came there. 12.2 P.W.-3 Md. Azharuddin Sheikh in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of ten months ago from that day. It was 2 o’ clock of day time. He was sitting at the door of his house and saw Mofijul taking Sanaul with him to the house of Ataul Sheikh. Thereafter alarm was raised. He also reached there and saw Mofijul assaulting with knife to Sanaul. He assaulted on the chest of Sanaul, who died at the spot. This occurrence took place adjacent to the house of Ataul. In cross-examination, this witness says that the house of Ataul Sheikh from his house is at the distance of 100 meters. When he reached there, he also saw Sarifa and Afjal Bibi there and none was there except them. Mofijul fled away after having given knife blow and Sanaul died at the spot. 12.3 P.W.-4 Tara Bewa (the mother of the deceased) in her examination-in-chief stated that on the day of occurrence after having heard hulla, she reached at the place of occurrence within five minutes and saw there Sanaul Sheikh dead and she came to know from the persons of the village that Azad and Mofijul had assaulted him. There was wound on the chest and neck of her son. In cross-examination, this witness says that Sanual and Azad called for and took his son with them. They took him at the house of Ataul. She found her son dead in the Verandah of house of Ataul. 12.4 P.W.-5 Sahdeo Mandal in his examination-in-chief stated that on the day of occurrence Daroga ji came at the spot. Daroga ji had interrogated him. Sanaul had died sustaining knife injury. In cross-examination, this witness says that he did not see the occurrence. 12.5 P.W.-6 Fulchand Mandal in his examination-in-chief stated that he did not see the occurrence by whom the murder of Sanaul was committed. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. He denied the statement given to the I.O. during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 12.6. 12.5 P.W.-6 Fulchand Mandal in his examination-in-chief stated that he did not see the occurrence by whom the murder of Sanaul was committed. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. He denied the statement given to the I.O. during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 12.6. P.W.-7 Tufani Sheikh (the informant of the case) in his examination-in-chief says that the occurrence was of 1 year 3 months ago from that day. It was 2 o’ clock of day time. Azad Sheikh and Mofijul Sheikh both had quarreled with his brother, thereafter, they took his brother to the house of Ataul. Upon hearing hulla he also reached there and saw that Azad Sheikh and Mofijul Sheikh both were fleeing away having knife in the hand. The knife was blood stained. His brother sustained knife injury on the chest and right side of the neck. It was Mofijul Sheikh, who given knife blow. The dispute arose on the issue of payment of Rs.1000/- which his brother had borrowed and could not return the same and assured to do labour in lieu thereof. On that day, the matter was pacified and after two days of that day, this occurrence took place. Both accused persons took his brother Sanaul Sheikh with them and committed murder. He gave the written information with the police station concerned on which he verifies his signature thereon which was marked Ext.1. In cross-examination, this witness says that while going to the house of Ataul from his house, first came the house of Mofijul thereafter the house of Ataul. The house of Ataul Sheikh, Azad Sheikh and Mofijul Sheikh are separate. When he came out of his house he was told by the wife of Ataul that both accused persons had committed murder of his brother. 12.7 P.W.-8 Dr. Ashish Naval Tigga in his examination-in-chief says that on 22nd April, 2010, he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Pakur and on that day he conducted the autopsy at 10:00 a.m. on the body of Sanual Sheikh and found following external ante mortem injuries : i. Rigours mortis passed on upper limbs and present in lower limbs. ii. Blood coming from both nostrils. iii. Stabbed wound ½” wide x cavity deep present at mid sternal region towards right, transverse in direction right and clear cut. iv. ii. Blood coming from both nostrils. iii. Stabbed wound ½” wide x cavity deep present at mid sternal region towards right, transverse in direction right and clear cut. iv. Incised wound 2” x muscle deep on upper back of left side about 1 inch from midline. On dissection Chest – Stabbed wound mark on external area between first and second ribs. Chest cavity filled with dark clotted blood about 500 ml. This witness also opined that cause of death was haemhorhage and shock due to hard sharp cutting with sharp edged weapon such as knife and dagger. This autopsy report was prepared by him and is under his signature which was marked as Ext.2. 12.8 P.W.-9 Shaligram Kuwar (the I.O. of the case) in his examination-in-chief says that he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Pakur (M) Police Station on 21st April, 2010 and recorded the fard beyan of Tufani Sheikh. He further stated that he had signed on the said fard beyan and proved the signature of the Tufani Sheikh on the same which was marked Ext.1/1. He has further proved the signature of the then Officer-in-Charge of the police station concerned, namely, Ramveer Ray which has been marked Ext.3. He inspected the place of occurrence which was the verandah of the house of Ataul Sheikh. He recorded the statements of witness – Tara Bewa, Md. Azharuddin Sheikh, Afjal Bibi, Sarifa Khatoon and Fulchand Mandal. After concluding investigation, he had filed the charge-sheet in this case. In cross-examination, this witness says that the place of occurrence was the verandah of the house of Ataul. He did not take the blood from the place of occurrence and he did not make effort to recover the knife used in murder. 13. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The eyewitnesses of the occurrence are P.W.-1 Afjal Banu Bibi, P.W.-2 Sarifa Khatoon and P.W.-3 Md. Ajharuddin Sheikh. P.W.-1 is the wife of Ataur Rahman and P.W.-2 is the daughter of Ataur. In the Verandah of their house the occurrence took place. Afjal Banu Bibi has stated that she had seen Mofijul giving knife blow to Sanual. He gave two knife blows on his chest and one on his arm. Thereafter Mofijul fled away along with knife and Sanaul died at the spot. P.W.- 2 Sarifa Khatoon is the daughter of the deceased—Ataur. Afjal Banu Bibi has stated that she had seen Mofijul giving knife blow to Sanual. He gave two knife blows on his chest and one on his arm. Thereafter Mofijul fled away along with knife and Sanaul died at the spot. P.W.- 2 Sarifa Khatoon is the daughter of the deceased—Ataur. She also says that at the time of occurrence she was cutting the leaves of biri in her verandah. Mofijul gave knife blow to Sanaul. He gave knife blow on his chest and back. Sanaul died at the spot. P.W.-3 Ajharuddin Sheikh in his statement says that at the time of occurrence he was sitting at the door of his house. Mafijul called Sanaul and took Sanual with him towards the house of Ataul Sheikh. Thereafter he heard hulla and immediately reached there and saw Mofijul giving knife blow to Sanaul on his chest, who died at the spot. This occurrence took place near the house of Ataul. 14. In testimony of all these three eye-witnesses, there is no contradiction in their statement given before the trial court and the statement given before the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The presence of all these three witnesses at the place of occurrence could not be shaked in cross-examination by the defence. The presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence is found natural as P.W.- 1 Afjal Banu Bibi and P.W.-2 Sarifa Khatoon both are the eye-witness in whose verandah of the house, the occurrence took place. P.W.-3 Md. Ajharuddin Sheikh also saw the occurrence who was sitting at the door of the house and also reached at the place of occurrence and distance from the place of occurrence to his house was only 100 meter. 15. P.W.-4 Tara Bewa (the mother of the deceased) says that after hearing hulla on the day of occurrence she reached at the place of occurrence which was verandah of house of Ataul and saw his son is lying in pool of blood. She was told by Sarifa Khatoon and Afjal Banu Bibi that Mafijul had given knife blow to her son and fled away. 16. P.W.-7 Tufani Sheikh is the brother of the deceased and informant. He has proved the written information as Ext.1 and says that on hearing hulla he reached at the place of occurrence and saw his brother Sanaul lying in pool of blood, who had sustained knife injury. 16. P.W.-7 Tufani Sheikh is the brother of the deceased and informant. He has proved the written information as Ext.1 and says that on hearing hulla he reached at the place of occurrence and saw his brother Sanaul lying in pool of blood, who had sustained knife injury. His brother was lying at the verandah of house of the Ataul and the wife of Ataul told him that Mafijul had given a knife blow to his brother, who was lying in pool of blood. 17. The testimony of these two witnesses is also admissible in evidence under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as a res gestae evidence as both these witnesses reached at the place of occurrence after having hearing the screaming and alarm and found deceased Sanaul lying in pool of blood, who had sustained injury and they also came to know from the eye-witness P.W.-1 Afjal Banu Bibi and P.W.- 2 Sarifa Khatoon that it was Mafijul, who had given knife blow to Sanaul. Therefore, the testimony of these witnesses also become admissible in evidence, as they reached at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and were told by the eye-witness in regard to the occurrence . 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ramesh and Another reported in (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 493 at paragraph 18 has held as under : “18. In Sukhar v. State of U.P. [ (1999) 9 SCC 507 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 419] this Court has explained the provisions of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observing that it is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. However, such evidence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” that it becomes relevant by itself. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” that it becomes relevant by itself. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the evidence of Munna Lal (PW 2), we reach the conclusion that his statement indicating that Rannu Bai (PW 1) had come to him and told that her father was beaten by Ramesh with the help of her mother, is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.” 18.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1854 at paragraph 8 has held as under : “8. PW-5 has clearly stated in his statement that no telephone was installed at the Railway Station, Kahangarh but there was a telephone installed at the Railway Control Room at the Railway Station which, however, was found to be out of order. He also stated that he had gone to GRP Police Post at Budhlada from where he sent a message to the Control Room at Bathinda on telephone about the occurrence. The aforesaid statement clearly explains the delay in sending the information and also explained as to why detailed information regarding all materials leading to the occurrence was not mentioned by him. He cannot be called in any manner an interested witness; in fact he was a most dis-interested witness. Nothing has been brought on record to show that he is inimical to the accused persons. He has specifically stated in his depositions that he saw the aforesaid accused running towards the village side carrying weapons. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted as it is established that he was at duty at the Railway Police Post, Kahangarh, which is the place of occurrence. He has also stated in his depositions that he had in fact chased the two accused persons up to a certain distance but could not manage to nab them and that when he returned to the scene of occurrence, Surjit Kaur, PW-3, disclosed to him about the occurrence. He has also stated in his depositions that he had in fact chased the two accused persons up to a certain distance but could not manage to nab them and that when he returned to the scene of occurrence, Surjit Kaur, PW-3, disclosed to him about the occurrence. This shows that he did not see the accused persons attacking the deceased but learnt about the same from an eye witness and the said information about the dead body lying at the platform was flashed by him, for he knew that on receipt of the aforesaid information the police should start investigation and during that course police would definitely ask eye witnesses and get all the information from them. In any case, his information would be hearsay evidence, but as the same corroborates the substantive evidence.” 19. The ocular evidence adduced on behalf the prosecution is also corroborated with the medical evidence. P.W.-8 Dr. Ashish Nawal Tigga has proved the autopsy report of the deceased Sanual as Ext.2. This witness found the following external ante mortem injuries: i. Rigours mortis passed on upper limbs and present in lower limbs. ii. Blood coming from both nostrils. iii. Stabbed wound ½” wide x cavity deep present at mid sternal region towards right, transverse in direction right and clear cut. iv. Incised wound 2” x muscle deep on upper back of left side about 1 inch from midline. On dissection Chest – Stabbed wound mark on external area between first and second ribs. Chest cavity filled with dark clotted blood about 500 ml. The doctor has opined that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of sharp cutting weapon such as knife or dagger. Therefore, the ocular evidence is well corroborated with the medical evidence. 20. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-9) in his statement stated that he had recorded the fard beyan of Tufani Sheikh and he also recorded the statement of witness, Tara Bewa, Md. Ajharuddin Sheikh, Afjal Bibi, Sarifa Khatoon and Fulchand Mandal. There is nothing to shake the testimony of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses whose statements he recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has also proved the place of occurrence which is the verandah of the house of Ataul. As such the testimony of this P.W.-9 also corroborated the prosecution story. 21. There is nothing to shake the testimony of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses whose statements he recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has also proved the place of occurrence which is the verandah of the house of Ataul. As such the testimony of this P.W.-9 also corroborated the prosecution story. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the blood was not taken from the place of occurrence and blood stained knife was not recovered by the I.O. and same was not sent to SFSL for examination which is fatal to the prosecution case. 22. Admittedly, the I.O. has not taken the blood from the place of occurrence and did not recover the knife used in commission of the murder. Consequently, the same was not sent to SFSL for examination but this lackadaisical approach on the part of the I.O. cannot discredit the testimony of the eye-witnesses in whose presence the appellant has assaulted with knife and have specifically stated the place of occurrence was the verandah of house of Ataul, therefore, not taking the blood from the place of occurrence and also not recovering the knife used in murder cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case, as the same is based on direct evidence. 22.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2014 SC 2587 at paragraph 48 has held as under : “48. As far as the contention made on behalf of the Appellant that non-production of the weapon used in the attack is fatal to the case of the prosecution is concerned, the reliance placed upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the decision reported in Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 339 would meet the said contention. In paragraphs 8 and 10, this Court has also held that the non-production of the weapon used in the attack is neither fatal to the prosecution case nor any adverse inference can be drawn on that score. Therefore, the said submission is also rejected.” 22.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5160 at paragraph 36 has held as under : “36. Therefore, the said submission is also rejected.” 22.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5160 at paragraph 36 has held as under : “36. A related contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the story of marriage was introduced for the first time by the prosecution witnesses during trial and the same was not even proved. However, we must note the observations of the learned Trial Judge which were to the effect that the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 162 Cr.P.C. were conspicuously silent on this part, thereby implying that the Investigating Officer did not care to inquire about it during investigation. Thus, in the light of the position of law examined above vis-a-vis effect of lapses in the investigation, we are not prepared to dispense with the accusation merely on this point especially when the Trial Court concluded that there was no material contradiction in the statements of PW1 and PW5.” 22.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Yadav @ Guddu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 217 has held that the evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and it was Azad Sheikh who had strong motive from whom the deceased had borrowed money and same was not returned to him. As such, there is no reason to believe why the appellant would commit the murder of the deceased. 24. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable, since, the motive of any occurrence is always hidden in the mind of the offender. Moreover, this case is based on direct evidence and in a case of direct evidence, the evidence of motive has no relevance. Therefore, even if, the motive of the occurrence against the appellant is not proved, on the basis of the same, the trustworthy and unblemished testimony of the eye-witness cannot be discredited. Moreover, this case is based on direct evidence and in a case of direct evidence, the evidence of motive has no relevance. Therefore, even if, the motive of the occurrence against the appellant is not proved, on the basis of the same, the trustworthy and unblemished testimony of the eye-witness cannot be discredited. 24.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing and another reported in AIR 1997 SC 2780 at paragraph 45 has held as under : “45. It is then contended by Shri Sushil Kumar that Accused No. 1 had no motive and the prosecution has failed to prove it. We find no force in the contention. The motive gets locked upon into mind of the makers and it is difficult to fathom it. The evidence of Acharya P.A. to the deceased, who too turned hostile to the prosecution speaks of motive. Equally, others have spoken but their evidence is not on record. If motive is proved that would supply a chain of links but absence thereof is not a ground to reject the prosecution case. So we reject the contention of the learned Counsel in that behalf too.” 24.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 1204 at paragraph 7 has held as under : “7. Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel who appeared in both the appeals attacked the judgment of the High Court and the trial court firstly, contending that there was absolutely no reason for the accused persons to assault the deceased and no motive has been attributed to all these accused persons. The learned counsel suggested that basically the story of the prosecution in the absence of any apparent motive became extremely doubtful. We are not impressed by this submission since motive in a criminal case is irrelevant where evidence of the eyewitnesses is available. In this case, there were as many as three eyewitnesses one of whom was the father of the deceased. Therefore, the question of absence of motive would have no importance whatsoever.” 25. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. though denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against him but he did not say why he was implicated in this case, though he simply stated himself to be innocent. 26. Therefore, the question of absence of motive would have no importance whatsoever.” 25. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. though denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against him but he did not say why he was implicated in this case, though he simply stated himself to be innocent. 26. After critical appraisal of the prosecution case and the evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has committed no illegality or infirmity in recording the findings of conviction of accused/appellant. As such there appears no justification for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment of conviction. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the learned trial court is, hereby, affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 27. The appellant is already in jail and he is directed to serve out the remaining sentence, as imposed by the learned trial court. Let the lower court's record be sent to the court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.