JUDGMENT : CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. 1. Assailing the judgment, dated 09.09.2014, passed in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2013 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, whereby the appellant, who is the sole accused in the said Sessions Case, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, the instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 2. Facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: (a) Both the deceased Rajana Koti and the accused are the residents of the same village. Both of them are agriculturists by profession. The deceased while doing cultivation was also acting as a mediator for purchase of bulls and buffalos on commission basis in the village. Earlier, a dispute arose between the deceased and the accused in relation to irrigation of their lands. It is stated that the deceased beat the accused in the quarrel that took place in connection with the said dispute. A panchayat was raised before the elders of the village and the elders found fault with the deceased in beating the accused and they imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on the deceased. However, the accused is not satisfied with the said imposition of fine by the elders. (b) Thereafter, some third parties intended to purchase buffaloes from the accused and they requested the deceased to act as a mediator in the said sale transaction. Accordingly, the deceased acted as a mediator and a deal was struck through him between the accused and the said third parties. In the said transaction, the deceased got commission in respect of the sale of the said buffaloes. PW.9 also acted as a mediator along with the deceased in the said sale transaction. (c) Thereafter, both the deceased and the accused along with PW.9 and some other persons went to the nearby liquor shop at about 5.00 p.m. on the date of offence i.e. on 09.06.2012 and consumed liquor and they dispersed from the said liquor shop. After some time, again, the accused and the deceased and PW.9 went to the shop of PW.8 and purchased liquor. After some time, again, the accused and the deceased and PW.9 went to the shop of PW.8 and purchased liquor. Thereafter, PW.9 went away and the accused and the deceased together left the said place. (d) After both of them left the said shop, short time thereafter at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased was found dead with injuries by the side of the road at the outskirts of the village. PW.2, who is the sister of the deceased, noticed the body of the deceased with injuries by the side of the road while returning from the field. Immediately, she has informed the same to the villagers and the injured was taken to the hospital in the autorickshaw of PW.7. However, he died on the way to the hospital in the auto-rickshaw. A report was lodged with the police in connection with the death of the deceased, who was found on the road with injuries. The said report was registered as a case in Crime No. 71 of 2012 of Sabbavaram Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Police investigated the case and on completion of investigation, as it is found that the accused, in view of his existing rivalry with the deceased, beat the deceased with a heavy stone on his head and caused injuries to him, that he died, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for committing the murder of the deceased. 3. The committal Court has taken the said charge-sheet on to the file in PRC No. 13 of 2012. Thereafter, as the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he has committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The trial Court has framed a charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and read over the same to the accused explaining the accusation to him. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 documents and M.O.1 to M.O. 7 material objects to substantiate its case against the accused. 6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution. 6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution. He denied the incriminating evidence that was adduced against him. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. Ex.D1 was marked on his behalf. 7. At the culmination of the trial, eventually, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused guilty of commission of the offence of murder of the deceased punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed fine, as detailed supra. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against him. 9. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 10. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the entire case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution mainly relied on the following circumstances to prove the case against the accused: (i) Motive on the part of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. (ii) Extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the accused before the V.R.O. - PW.12, admitting that he has killed the deceased in the quarrel that took place between both of them. (iii) The accused was last seen together with the deceased and thereafter within a short time, the deceased was found dead with injuries sustained by him and the accused did not explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death while he was in his company. 11. These are the three circumstances on which the prosecution relied on to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 12. As regards the first circumstance relating to motive is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that there was rivalry between the deceased and the accused. 11. These are the three circumstances on which the prosecution relied on to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 12. As regards the first circumstance relating to motive is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that there was rivalry between the deceased and the accused. According to the case of the prosecution, earlier a dispute took place between the accused and the deceased relating to irrigation of their lands and in connection with the said dispute a panchayat was raised before the village elders and the elders have imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- against the deceased as they found fault with him. To establish the said fact that there was earlier rivalry between the accused and the deceased, prosecution has examined PW.10, who is the elder of the village. He deposed in his evidence that ten days prior to the death of the deceased, a panchayat was raised before him and other village elders and they settled the dispute between the accused and the deceased relating to irrigation of their lands and the elders found fault with the deceased and that they imposed Rs.2,000/- towards fine and that the deceased paid Rs.2,000/- to the accused. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony given to that effect. Except giving the suggestion that no such panchayat was raised before him, nothing was brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. This PW.10, who is an independent witness absolutely has no necessity or reason to give false evidence against the accused. No enmity or motive is suggested with the accused to him. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10 can safely be believed and it proves that earlier a dispute was raised before him and other village elders. The said evidence of PW.10 proves that there was a rivalry between the accused and the deceased. 13. So, the first circumstance, on which the prosecution relied on, has been satisfactorily established in this case. 14. The medical evidence on record, as can be seen from the testimony of the doctor- PW.15, who has held autopsy over the dead-body of the deceased, proves that the deceased sustained about 8 external injuries and 2 internal injuries. 13. So, the first circumstance, on which the prosecution relied on, has been satisfactorily established in this case. 14. The medical evidence on record, as can be seen from the testimony of the doctor- PW.15, who has held autopsy over the dead-body of the deceased, proves that the deceased sustained about 8 external injuries and 2 internal injuries. He deposed that the deceased sustained the following external and internal injuries: “External: (1) Contusion of 12 x 8 c.m. on right side of the head above the right ear to back of right side head. (2) Contusion 4 x 3 c.m. on left side of head just above the left ear. (3) Contusion of 3 x 2 c.m. on back of left ear. (4) Laceration of 3 x 1 and half into half c.m. on upper half of front of left ear. (5) Laceration of 2 x 1 x ¼ c.m. on left side face in front of left ear. (6) Contusion of 2 x 2 c.m. on right side of face on bony cheek region. (7) Aberration of 3 x 1 and half c.m. obliquely on back of left hand. (8) Multiple small aberrations on back of right hand. Internal: Bruising of all the underlining tissues of right side temporal pictorial occipital scalp of head. (1) Depressed displaced fracture of 5 x 4 c.m. on right parietal bone of vault of skull with fissured fracture radiating into base of from depressed fracture. (2) Laceration of right tempo parietal lobus of brain with diffuse traumatic sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhage all over the brain and multiple small hemorrhages in brain stem present.” 15. Now, it is relevant to note that the Doctor - PW.15 further deposed that the object that was used is a blunt and heavy object and the said injuries are caused by using moderate to heavy force. He opined that the deceased died due to respiratory and circulatory failure due to injury to brain and the head injury. Ex.P6 is the post-mortem examination certificate issued by him to that effect. The evidence of the inquest witnesses, who are PW.11 and others, also proves that they noticed injuries on the deadbody of the deceased at the time of the inquest. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. Ex.P6 is the post-mortem examination certificate issued by him to that effect. The evidence of the inquest witnesses, who are PW.11 and others, also proves that they noticed injuries on the deadbody of the deceased at the time of the inquest. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. The said medical evidence on record i.e. the testimony of PW.15, the doctor, coupled with Ex.P6 postmortem examination certificate and the evidence of the inquest witnesses along with Ex.P2 inquest report clinchingly proves that the deceased sustained the aforesaid grievous injuries on the vital part of his body i.e. head and died on account of the said injuries sustained by him. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased met with a homicidal death. 16. Now, the next crucial question that crops up for consideration is whether the accused caused the said injuries to the deceased, which resulted into his death and whether he is responsible for the said homicidal death of the deceased or not. 17. As held supra, the prosecution has established that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased relating to the irrigation of their lands and that there was earlier quarrel between both of them, which was settled in the panchayat raised before the elders. Now, the next circumstance that was relied on by the prosecution to prove that it is the accused, who is responsible for his homicidal death is that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and that he met with a homicidal death in his presence and the accused failed to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death when he was in his company. In this regard, it is the basic version of the prosecution that some villagers approached the deceased to act as a mediator for purchase of buffaloes from the accused and accordingly, he acted as a mediator and after sale of the buffaloes by the accused that the deceased got commission and both the accused and the deceased initially went to a liquor shop along with another mediator - PW.9 and some other villagers and consumed liquor and others dispersed while the accused, the deceased and PW.9 again went to the shop of PW.8 and they purchased liquor there and from there, PW.9 went away and the accused and the deceased together left the shop of PW.9 and thereafter, the deceased was found dead within a short time with the above injuries on the road side at the outskirts of the village. 18. To prove that after sale of buffaloes that the accused and the deceased and others went to the liquor shop and consumed liquor and that, thereafter, they again went to the shop of PW.8 and from there the accused and the deceased together left the shop of PW.8 while others went away separately, prosecution has examined PW.6, PW.8 and PW.9. 19. PW.6 deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 2.00 p.m. some third parties purchased buffaloes from the accused and he also acted as a middle man and he got commission amount and with the said commission amount, he, the accused, the deceased and another together consumed alcohol and thereafter he left for his fields and the accused and the deceased and PW.9 went to their residence. 20. PW.8 deposed that he is doing kirana business. On the date of death of the deceased that the deceased, PW.6, the accused, and PW.9 and four others came to his shop at about 4.00 p.m. and purchased cool drink bottles and water packets and went away. He further stated that again at 6.00 p.m. the accused, the deceased and PW.9 together came to his shop and PW.9 stayed at his shop and the accused and the deceased together left his shop after purchasing cool drink bottles and water packets and on the same day at 9.00 p.m., PW.5 informed him over phone that the deceased died. 21. 21. Thus, the aforesaid evidence of these witnesses proves and establishes that after the sale of buffaloes that they all went to the liquor shop and consumed liquor and thereafter again the accused, the deceased and PW.9 went to the shop of PW.8 at 6.00 p.m. and thereafter, PW.8 stayed back, whereas the accused and the deceased together went away from the said shop. Now, it is relevant to note that after the accused and the deceased together left the shop of PW.8, within a short time thereafter i.e. about 7.00 p.m., he was found dead. 22. Now, the evidence of PW.3 is crucial, which establishes that the accused was also last seen at the scene of offence along with the deceased. PW.3 deposed in his evidence that he is working as Welder in Sri Thandava Lakshmi Engineering Works at Lankelapalem and on that day, he was returning to his village Narapadu and he along with one Lovaraju were going on a cycle to Narapadu and on the way at about 7.00 p.m. that he noticed the accused and the deceased at Nagendra Putta and the deceased was on the ground in a drunken state and the accused was trying to lift him and thereafter, he went away on his cycle to his house. This evidence of PW.3 clinchingly establishes that he has seen the accused along with the deceased at the scene of offence. There is nothing elicited in the cross-examination of PW.3 to discredit his testimony. This PW.3 is also an independent witness. No motive or enmity is attributed to him with the accused. So, PW.3 has absolutely no reason to give any false evidence against the accused. Except eliciting that PW.1 is his paternal aunt, nothing else was elicited to discredit his testimony. Mere fact that PW.1 is his paternal aunt by itself is not a valid ground to discard his testimony or to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 and other evidence, as discussed supra, clinchingly establishes that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and, more particularly, the evidence of PW.3 establishes that the accused was seen alone along with the deceased at the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 and other evidence, as discussed supra, clinchingly establishes that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and, more particularly, the evidence of PW.3 establishes that the accused was seen alone along with the deceased at the scene of offence. Therefore, the accused has to explain as to how the deceased sustained the said fatal injuries, which resulted into his death and as to how he died while he was in his company. Absolutely, no explanation is offered either in the cross-examination of any witnesses or at any stage of the trial of the case by the accused. It is well settled law that when the accused is found last in the company of the deceased together and thereafter, the deceased was found dead with fatal injuries, it is for the accused to explain as to when, where and how, he has parted with the company of the deceased. It is also for the accused to explain how the deceased met with homicidal death when he was in his company. Failure to explain as to when, where and how, he parted the company of the deceased and as to how he met with a homicidal death when he was in his company will lead to an inference that it is the accused, who has caused the said injures, which resulted into the death of the deceased and killed him. As per settled law that is the only irresistible conclusion that can be arrived at in the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. The evidence of PW.8 clearly proves that at about 6.00 p.m. the accused and the deceased together left his shop and went away. The evidence of PW.3 establishes that after a short time thereafter he has seen the accused and the deceased at Nagendra Putta i.e. at the scene of offence, where the deceased was found dead with fatal injuries. So, the aforesaid evidence clearly leads to an irresistible conclusion coupled with the motive that is established that it is the accused alone who is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased and that he caused the aforesaid injuries to him and killed him. It is not possible to take any other inference from the established facts of the case from the evidence on record. It is not possible to take any other inference from the established facts of the case from the evidence on record. It is not the case of the defence also that the deceased got enmity with any other person in the village, who had motive to kill him or to cause fatal injuries to him. 24. The Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan @ Sagadevan vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai, (2003) 1 SCC 534 held that if the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are proved beyond doubt, then the absence of motive would not hamper a conviction. Further, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, explaining the last seen together theory, it is held that if the prosecution on the basis of reliable evidence establishes that the missing person was last seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is obligatory on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company. Also held that false explanation/statement made by the accused would be taken as a circumstance against the accused. 25. In the recent judgment rendered in the case of Ram Gopal vs. State of M.P. (2023) 5 SCC 534 : 2023 Live Law (SC) 120, the Apex Court held 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. 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. Also held that even though 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. 26. Also held that even though 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. 26. Although, the prosecution relied on the other circumstance that the accused has given an extra-judicial confession before the V.R.O., who is examined as PW.12, a careful perusal of the evidence of PW.12 shows that the accused only approached him on 11.06.2012 at Panchayat Office and that thereafter, he took the accused to Sabbavaram Police Station and at the Police Station that the accused voluntarily confessed before him regarding the offence committed by him and killing the deceased. Therefore, his evidence establishes that the extrajudicial confession was not given to him at the Panchayat Office, but it was given at the police station. Although, he did not state regarding the presence of the police at the time of giving said extra-judicial confession, as it is stated by him that the said confession was given to him at the police station, the presence of the police at that time cannot be ruled out and it is to be held that the said confession was given to PW.12 by the accused at the police station in the presence of the police. So, when it was given in the police station, the said confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and it is not admissible in evidence. But, the mere fact that this theory of giving extra-judicial confession by the accused before PW.12 is not proved that by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as the motive on the part of the accused is established and more particularly, as it is proved that the accused was found last in the company of the deceased at the scene of offence, where he was killed. Therefore, the aforesaid two circumstances are sufficient enough to hold that the accused is guilty of committing the murder of the deceased, an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 27. Therefore, the aforesaid two circumstances are sufficient enough to hold that the accused is guilty of committing the murder of the deceased, an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even though the said extra-judicial confession is now hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and it is not admissible in evidence, and prosecution cannot rely on it, but the accused can make use of the same to establish his case. In support of the said contention, she placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case of Kandi Venkata Suneel Kumar Reddy vs. State of A.P. 2010 (1) ALD (Cri) 699. It is held in the said judgment that the confession, which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, cannot be used by the prosecution, but the same can be used by the accused. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant would now contend that a perusal of Ex.P4 - extra-judicial confession recorded by the V.R.O. - PW.12, shows that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased when both of them are in a state of intoxication and that the deceased first beat the accused with chappal and thereafter, when the accused pushed the deceased that he fell on a stone and this shows that the deceased sustained injuries due to fall on the stone and not because of beating the deceased with M.O.3 stone by the accused. She would also contend that as the deceased first beat the accused, that he has provoked him and as such, when the accused pushed him, that he has fallen on the stone and sustained the said injuries and these facts show that the case do not attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and at best it attracts the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. She would also contend that when the medical evidence shows that there are two injuries on the head and it is not proved by the prosecution which injury resulted into the death of the deceased that a benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 29. She would also contend that when the medical evidence shows that there are two injuries on the head and it is not proved by the prosecution which injury resulted into the death of the deceased that a benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 29. Even if the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted for a moment on the basis of the contents of Ex.P4 extra-judicial confession statement, which shows that the accused pushed the deceased in the quarrel and the deceased fell on the stone, that by itself will not establish that all the injuries i.e. the multiple injuries that are sustained by the deceased, which are evident from the post mortem examination certificate and the evidence of the doctor, are sustained by him due to fall on the stone. At best, even if the deceased has fallen on the stone on account of the push that was given by the accused, he would sustain only one injury on one part of his head. But, by a single fall on a stone, it is not possible and in fact it is impossible to sustain multiple injuries which are found on the body of the deceased, which are evident from the post mortem examination certificate. So, this rules out the possibility of the deceased sustaining multiple injuries due to single fall on a stone even if the said contention is accepted. 30. More over, it is important to note that the doctor, who is examined as PW.15, categorically deposed in his evidence that the injuries, which are mentioned in the post mortem examination certificate, are possible to be caused with blunt, broad and heavy object by use of moderate to heavy force. Therefore, it is clear that the said injuries are not caused due to mere fall on the stone, but they are caused with a blunt, broad and heavy object by using heavy force. The medical evidence clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased are caused with a blunt, broad and heavy object by using heavy force with the said object. Further, the doctor has clearly denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that it is possible to sustain the said injuries by a fall on a stone. The medical evidence clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased are caused with a blunt, broad and heavy object by using heavy force with the said object. Further, the doctor has clearly denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that it is possible to sustain the said injuries by a fall on a stone. Therefore, the aforesaid medical evidence on record completely rules out the possibility of the deceased sustaining the said multiple injuries by a single fall on the stone. So, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. It absolutely stands for no reason in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. Therefore, the said contention raised on behalf of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that as the offence took place in a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, and as the accused had no intention to kill him, that it is not a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and at best, it amounts to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder falling within the purview of fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. 32. In the instant case, it is relevant to note that the object that was used to cause injuries sustained by the deceased is a big stone, which can be termed as a boulder of 15 k.gs. weight approximately, which is M.O.3. When the accused used such an object of a heavy stone, and caused injuries by using heavy force, and that too on the vital part of the body i.e. on the head, which resulted into causing severe injuries to brain and the head, it is to be held that the accused, who intended to cause the said injuries, got every reason to believe that by using such a blunt and heavy object like M.O.3 stone, and causing injuries on the vital part of the body i.e. on the head with such heavy object by using heavy force in all probability would result into the death of the deceased. 33. 33. In order to attract Section 300 IPC, even though the injuries are not caused with intention to cause death, still if it is found that the accused who had intention to cause injuries has reason to believe that such injuries that he may cause to the deceased would result into his death, it is sufficient to hold him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It clearly falls within the purview of explanation thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC. For better appreciation, they are extracted hereunder and they read as follows: “Thirdly - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Fourthly - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid, then it amounts to murder as defined under Section 300 IPC.” 34. So, reading the aforesaid explanation thirdly and fourthly under Section 300 IPC, the legal position is very clear that intention to cause death is not the pre-requisite to hold him guilty under Section 300 IPC and when it is found that the act is committed with an intention to cause bodily injury and when such a bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then one can be made liable for the offence under Section 300 IPC. As already discussed supra, the acts of the accused in using an object like M.O.3, boulder, which is blunt and heavy object, with an intention to cause injuries with that object by using heavy force to the deceased and that too on the vital part of the body i.e., head, causing head injury and brain injury, clearly attracts the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, it is a clear case of committing the murder of the deceased in this case by the accused. 35. Therefore, it is a clear case of committing the murder of the deceased in this case by the accused. 35. The judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kandi Venkata Suneel Kumar Reddy (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not applicable to the present facts of the case. In that case, the last seen theory was not accepted by the Court on the basis of the evidence that was available in that case. In the instant case, the fact that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and that too at the scene of offence has been amply established with legal, cogent, acceptable and convincing evidence. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not of any use to the case of the accused. 36. The trial Court has also after considering the said evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the proved circumstances in this case clinchingly established that it is the accused, who has committed the murder of the deceased and recorded a finding of guilt against him and convicted him and imposed punishment for the said offence. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said findings recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of trial Court are perfectly sustainable under law and they warrant no interference in this Appeal. 37. In fine, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. 38. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.