JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 198/2019, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 120B of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 month’s additional RI U/s 302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 month’s additional RI U/s 25(1-B) (B) of the Arms Act Two years imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, 2 month’s additional RI U/s 27 of the Arms Act Two years imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, 2 month’s additional RI 3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the complainant Mamta Naidu had lodged a report in the Telibandha police station of Raipur to the effect that about a week ago her brother Deepak Naidu and Arshad's father Baba Jani had a fight. Arshad had a grudge against Deepak Naidu in this matter. On 15.06.2019, at around 6.00 pm, Arshad called her brother saying that they will drink alcohol, on which, his brother Deepak Naidu left the house on a motorcycle. Arshad also followed his brother on a different motorcycle. When his brother did not return home, then at around 07.04 pm, her sister-in-law (bhabhi) Sama called Deepak to come back quickly. 4. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant’s brother Deepak was talking to his wife Sama when his conversation stopped and his sister-in-law Sama started crying and told that Arshad and Nadeem etc. were fighting with Deepak Naidu, his mobile has fallen and he is not able to talk. On this, the complainant called her elder brother Raja and told him that Arshad and Nadeem etc. were fighting and beating Deepak Naidu, go and find out. were fighting with Deepak Naidu, his mobile has fallen and he is not able to talk. On this, the complainant called her elder brother Raja and told him that Arshad and Nadeem etc. were fighting and beating Deepak Naidu, go and find out. Then his brother Raja went to find out about Deepak Naidu and between 8.00 and 8.30 pm, Raja Naidu came back home and told that Arshad, Nadeem and his companions have seriously injured Deepak on his chest, stomach and arm with a knife on Labhandi liquor distillery road, and he has been taken to the hospital. On learning this, the complainant along with her sister-in-law Sama, father Ganesh Naidu and mother Nirmala Naidu reached Mekahara hospital, where it was told that her brother had died. 5. On the basis of the above report of the complainant Mamta Naidu, FIR (Ex.P-12) has been registered against the accused/appellants under Crime No. 323/2019 for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Telibandha and the case was taken for investigation. On receiving information about the death of Deepak Naidu due to murder, Merg No. 32/2019 was registered by Telibandha Police Station vide Ex.P-13. On receiving information about the death of Deepak Naidu from Mekahara Hospital Raipur, an unnumbered Merg Intimation was registered by Maudhapara Police Station. Investigating officer reached to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur after summoning the witnesses under Section 175 CrPC (Ex.P-13A) inquest over the dead body of deceased Deepak Naidu was prepared vide Ex.P14 and thereafter application for conducting postmortem was given vide Ex.P15, upon which, postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Deepak Naidu was conducted by Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12) and report was given by him vide Ex.P-15, whereby following injuries were found :- Injury Nos. 1 & 2 : There were 2 stab wounds present in 5th & 6th intercostal region (space between two ribs) of chest on left side, (01) in 5th intercostal region measuring 3x1x6 cms and (02) in 6th intercostal region measuring 2.5x0.5x2 cms. Injury No.3: In chest on right side 4 cms from nipple medially 1x0.5x0.5 cms. Injury No.4: In upper quadrant of abdomen on left side 3x0.5x depth of intestine. Injury No.5: In middle quadrant of abdomen on left side 3x0.5x depth of intestine. Injury No.6: In middle quadrant of abdomen on right side 3x1x laterally to depth of intestine. Injury No.3: In chest on right side 4 cms from nipple medially 1x0.5x0.5 cms. Injury No.4: In upper quadrant of abdomen on left side 3x0.5x depth of intestine. Injury No.5: In middle quadrant of abdomen on left side 3x0.5x depth of intestine. Injury No.6: In middle quadrant of abdomen on right side 3x1x laterally to depth of intestine. Injury No.7: In the middle of the back 4 cm from the spinal cord on the right side laterally 3X1X2 cm. Injury No.8: In the left side of the back 4 cm from the spinal cord L-5 laterally 3X1X2 cm. Injury No.9: A 6X1 cm eroded wound was present laterally in the middle part of abdomen on right side and a 3X2 cm eroded wound was present on elbow on right side. Injury No.10: A 3X1 cm eroded wound was present on arm on right side. As per opinion of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12), death of deceased Deepak Naidu was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple stab injuries, duration of death was within 24 hrs prior to postmortem examination and nature of death was homicidal in nature. 6. During the investigation, the accused Arshad and Nadeem were taken into custody and questioned in front of witnesses. A map of the crime scene was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Memo for preparing spot map was given to Tahsildar vide Ex.P-1 and thereafter spot map was prepared by Patwari Manish Dhangar (PW-1) vide Ex.P-2. Blood-soaked soil and plain soil were seized from the crime scene vide Ex.P-11. Memorandum statement of accused Arshad was recorded in front of witnesses Raju Kumar (PW-2) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-7) vide Ex.P-4 and at his instance one knife containing blood stains; one VIVO company mobile with one SIM bearing No.7000118792; one vehicle Jupiter bearing registration No. CG-04 -LW- 9327; one full sleeve shirt worn at the time of incident containing blood stains and one lower worn at the time of incident containing blood stains were seized vide Ex.P-6. Memorandum statement of accused Nadeem was recorded in front of witnesses Raju Kumar (PW-2) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-7) vide Ex.P-5 and at his instance one knife containing blood stains; one LAVA company mobile with one SIM bearing No. 8120511302; one half T-shirt worn at the time of incident containing blood stains and one Jeans pant worn at the time of incident containing blood stains were seized vide Ex.P-7. Bloodstained clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-17. Bill of VIVO mobile was seized vide Ex.P-18 and Registration Card of Jupiter bearing registration No. CG-04 -LW- 9327 was seized vide Ex.P-19. On finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons, they were arrested vide Exs. P-8 and P-9 respectively and information of their arrest were given to their family members vide Exs. P-22 and 23 respectively. 7. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized articles and seized knives were sent to Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12) for query vide Exs.P-31 and P-32 respectively, who gave query report of the same vide Exs. P-41 and P-43 respectively and had given suggestion for chemical examination, thereafter, seized items were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination vide Ex.P-33 and therefrom FSL report was obtained vide Ex.P-34. 8. On finding prima facie evidence of crime against the accused Arshad Khan and Syed Nadeem alias Bada Monu, charge-sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under Section 120-B, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act and the accused Lalit Barve alias Leeyan and Kaleel alias Khaleel alias Sonu were declared as absconder. After the case was submitted to the Sessions Court, Raipur, it was duly transferred to the court of learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur for hearing. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The accused denied the charges levelled against them. In their trial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused persons did not produce any witness in their defence, claiming innocence and being falsely implicated. 9. The prosecution has examined witnesses Manish Dhangar (PW-1), Raju Kumar (PW-2), Nirmala Naidu (PW-3), Mamta Naidu (PW-4), Sama Naidu (PW-5), Raja Naidu (PW-6), Bhagwan Singh Chauhan (PW-7), Roshan Kumar Tandekar (PW-8), Assistant Sub-Inspector Surendra Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Sub-Inspector Suresh Sharma (PW-10), Sub-Inspector Ramswaroop Dewangan (PW-11), Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12), Dr. Anil Baghel (PW-13), Ramesh Kanwar (PW-14). 10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 25.11.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 11. Mr. Gagan Tiwari and Mr. M. Nirala (PW-12), Dr. Anil Baghel (PW-13), Ramesh Kanwar (PW-14). 10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 25.11.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 11. Mr. Gagan Tiwari and Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellants would submit the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case only because of previous animosity between them. The deceased himself was an alcoholic and a criminal minded person, against whom as many as 08 to 09 criminal cases of various offences were going on and the deceased had enmity with many people. They submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and theory of last seen together is not proved as Sama Naidu (PW-5), wife of the deceased has specifically stated that his husband Deepak Naidu left the house early in the morning 7-8 am after consuming alcohol and at round 7 o’clock in the evening, she came to know from the women of the neighborhood that her husband had a fight with someone and she also came to know from the people of the neighborhood that her husband was injured in the fight and so he was taken to Mekahara. On receiving the above information, she went to Mekahara with her sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law and after reaching there, they came to know that her husband had died. Even otherwise, merely on the basis of last seen together, no conviction can be recorded unless the chain of circumstances is complete to reach to a conclusion that it is only and only the accused/appellants who have caused the murder of the deceased. They further submitted the witnesses of search and seizure have been turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution, even, as per FSL report, the blood stains found on the seized articles have not been proved to be of the human blood, as such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions and would submit that unnatural death of the deceased Deepak Naidu has been proved by Dr. Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions and would submit that unnatural death of the deceased Deepak Naidu has been proved by Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12), who in turn opined through his report (Ex.P-15) that the cause of death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding and shock due to multiple stab injuries and the nature of death was homicidal. He would further submit that the Investigating Officer (PW-11) recorded memorandum statements of the accused/appellants and at there instance, weapon of offence which were used in commission of crime i.e. Knives were sezied. The independent & attesting witnesses Yograj Netam (PW-3) and Mahesh Netam (PW-9) have proved their signature on the memorandum statement and seizure of the accused. Investigating Officer (PW-11) has also proved the same in the form of documentary evidence. He would also submit that the learned trial Court has properly taken into consideration the circumstantial evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution which leads to the only conclusion that the accused/appellants have committed offences charged framed against them. It is respectfully submitted that as per postmortem report (Ex.P-15) the deceased was died due to stab injury, therefore, it is crystal clear that before death the deceased was assaulted by the accused with any hard object in the case in hand "knife", therefore, it is proved that the accused/appellant has murdered the deceased. He also submitted that Mamta Naidu (PW-4) and Nirmala Naidu (PW-3) have proved the last seen together with the deceased and the accused. The prosecution has tendered sufficient and credible evidence for proving the commission of offence by the accused/appellants. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has recorded the finding of the guilt of accused as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Deepak Naidu was homicidal in nature ? 15. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Deepak Naidu was homicidal in nature ? 15. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Deepak Naidu vide Ex.P-15, has stated that during postmortem he has found as many as 11 injuries out of which 09 were penetrative wounds and has opined that cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple stab injuries and nature of death was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 16. This would bring us to the next question as to whether the appellants caused the murder of deceased Deepak Naidu. 17. There is no eyewitness to this incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063 ; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316 ; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446 ; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224 ; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350 ; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890 . The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621 , it was laid down by the Supreme Court that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 18. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 19. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79 , it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 20. 20. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104, it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 21. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 22. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , which state as under:- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 22. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , which state as under:- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 23. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 681, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.” 24. The principles of circumstantial evidence is reiterated in Nizam and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that:- “8. Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his innocence.” 25. Mamta Naidu (PW-4) has stated that on the date of incident, accused Arshad and Syed Nadeem took his brother Deepak Naidu with them. When his brother Deepak did not return till evening, Deepak's wife Sama Naidu called Deepak. When Sama Naidu was talking to her husband Deepak, she was also present and she could hear the conversation between the two. She heard from the phone that Deepak was telling his wife about the fight with her. Mamta Naidu then went to her elder brother Raja and told him about the fight with Deepak. She has also said that at the same time, a call came from Raju, a junk dealer living in their neighborhood, who told that Monu and Arshad were beating Deepak very badly near the Labhandih liquor distillery. After getting the above information, his brother Raja Bhai went to the scene of the incident. 26. Raja Naidu (PW-6) is the brother of the deceased who has stated that Raju Kabadi called at home and informed that some boys were beating Deepak, upon which his family members informed him about that thereafter he went to country liquor distillery Labhandi and saw that his brother was writhing in pain. On questioning him he told that Monu, Arshad, Khalil and Leon had called him and beaten him. His brother died after telling the above thing. He also told that there were injury marks on his brother's chest, thigh, back and other parts of the body. He has said that his signature is on the dead body panchanama Ex.P-14. Roshan Kumar Naidu (PW-8), witness of the dead body panchanama, has also said that his signature is on the panchanama. 27. Nirmala Naidu (PW-3) is the mother of the deceased. He has said that his signature is on the dead body panchanama Ex.P-14. Roshan Kumar Naidu (PW-8), witness of the dead body panchanama, has also said that his signature is on the panchanama. 27. Nirmala Naidu (PW-3) is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that on the date of incident at about 4-4.30 pm, accused Arshad Khan came to her house in a yellow coloured vehicle like scooty and told his son Deepak to go for a stroll, so his son left the house with accused Arshad on his friend's motorcycle. She has further deposed that at about 7-15 pm, his neighbour Raju Kumar informed his family that Deepak is being thrashed with knives near Labhandi liquor distillery. Then Raju's daughter came to her house and informed her about this. On receiving the above information, his elder son Raja Naidu, went for search of Deepak. 28. Sama Naidu (PW-5) is the wife of the deceased, who has stated that on the date of incident her husband Deepak Naidu had left the house after consuming alcohol at around 7-8 in the morning and at about 7 o'clock in the evening she came to know from the women of the neighborhood that her husband Deepak had a fight with somebody. 29. Sub-Inspector Ramswaroop Devangan (PW-11) had prepared the spot map Ex.P-10 after inspecting the spot on the identification of Raja Naidu, in which the spot was marked as A in red ink. Through him, the Patwari was sent a memo (Ex.P-1) through the Tehsildar Raipur for preparing the map. He had taken a photo of the spot on his mobile, which is Article A-1. Patwari Manish Dhangar (PW-1) had prepared a site map Ex.P-2 of the spot by going to the spot near Labhandi liquor shop, near B. Rao Engineering Works. Raju Kumar (PW-2) has said in this regard that he had not gone to the spot with the police, however, he has said that his signature is on the map Ex. P-10. 30. In the memorandum statement (Ex.P-4) accused Arshad had told that a week back, Deepak Naidu had quarreled with his father, due to which he got angry and out of enmity, on 14.06.2019 at 8-9 pm at Marine Drive Telibandha, he discussed with his friends Nadeem alias Monu, Kaleel alias Khalil Rehman, Lalit Barve alias Lian and made a plan to murder Deepak Naidu. As per this plan, on the evening of 15.06.2019, with the plan to murder Deepak Naidu, he went to Deepak Naidu's house in his Jupiter vehicle, asked him to go towards Labhandi liquor distillery to give him liquor, Deepak Naidu went ahead on a separate motorcycle, and followed him to Labhandi liquor distillery in Jupiter vehicle. As per the plan, he along with his friend Nadeem alias Monu, Kaleel alias Khalil Rehman, Lalit Barve alias Lian reached the liquor distillery in Labhandi on a motorcycle with knives. All of them together made the deceased drink alcohol and when it got dark, Deepak Naidu was returning on his motorcycle, all of them stopped Deepak Naidu at the scene of the incident and started attacking him with knives with the intention of killing him. All of them ran away after the deceased fell on the ground. Accused Ashraf told that he had hidden the knife with which he killed Deepak Naidu in his house, he had kept his Jupiter vehicle No. C.G. 04 LW 9327, in his house and he had kept the Vivo company mobile sim number 7000118792, used in planning the murder, in his house. On the basis of the memorandum of accused Arshad Khan, a knife on which stains like human blood were found, a Vivo company mobile, vehicle Jupiter No. CG 04 LW 9327, clothes worn at the scene of the incident, a full sleeve T-shirt, a dark blue readymade lower on which stains like human blood were visible near the right leg of the incident, were seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-8. On presenting the original receipt and photocopy of the Vivo mobile, the photocopy was certified and attached to the case and the original receipt was returned to the accused, the said receipt is Ex.P-18. As per Ex.P-19, two-wheeler Jupiter CG 04 LW 9327 belongs to Arshad Khan was seized. 31. While taking memorandum statement of accused Syed Nadeem alias Baba Monu by Ram Swaroop Dewangan (PW-11) at Telibandha police station on 16.06.2019, he had stated that on the incident date 15.06.2019 at 6:00 pm, he had reached Labhandi liquor distillery with his friends Kaleel and Lalit Barve and was waiting for Arshad. When Deepak and Arshad arrived, they drank alcohol and at around 7:30 pm, Deepak left for home on his motorcycle. When Deepak and Arshad arrived, they drank alcohol and at around 7:30 pm, Deepak left for home on his motorcycle. They followed him and after some distance, they stopped Deepak Naidu, met him with a knife with the intention of killing him as per the plan and fled away. As per seizure memo Ex. P-7, a steel knife, a Lava company mobile and the clothes worn at the time of the incident, a red colour half t-shirt and black colour jeans pant which had human blood stains at various places, after sealing them separately were seized from possession of accused Syed Nadeem by Ramswaroop Dewangan (PW-11). 32. According to the FSL report (Ex.P-34) received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, blood has been found in the soil recovered from the crime scene, the knife seized from the accused, the T-shirt and lower seized from accused Arshad Khan and the T-shirt seized from accused Syed Nadeem, the T-shirt, underwear, lower, towel vest and cutter blade and it has been reported that human blood has been found in the lower and towel of the deceased. 33. It has come to light in the evidence that Raja Naidu (PW-6) had gone to the spot where his brother Deepak Naidu was writhing in pain and Deepak Naidu had told him that the accused were going to kill him, after which Deepak died. The evidence presented by the prosecution shows that deceased Deepak Naidu was seen going with accused Arshad and Syed, thereafter, Deepak Naidu was found dead. Though the wife of the deceased Shama Naidu (PW-5) has denied that the deceased had gone with the said accused, but the statement of Mamta Naidu (PW-4) and Nirmala Naidu (PW-3) proves that the deceased had gone with the accused. Thus, the doctrine of “last seen together” shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring them to explain how the incident had occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against them. 34. The accused and the deceased were last seen together and thereafter Deepak Naidu was found dead. Thus, on the basis of last seen and circumstantial evidence, the crime against the accused is proved. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against them. 34. The accused and the deceased were last seen together and thereafter Deepak Naidu was found dead. Thus, on the basis of last seen and circumstantial evidence, the crime against the accused is proved. It is true that there are some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, but this alone does not prove that the accused did not commit the incident. Only because some of the witnesses have partially turned hostile, their evidence cannot be rejected completely. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be considered as completely eliminated, but can be accepted to the extent that their statements are found to be dependable and the court will examine it with greater care to arrive at a conclusion as to how far it has supported the prosecution case. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused have not given any explanation of the incident except a general denial of all the incriminating circumstances. Some contradictory statements have been brought by the defence in the statements of the witnesses presented on behalf of the prosecution and some deficiencies have been brought in the investigation but they are not such substantial deficiencies that the entire prosecution story can be doubted. 35. Raju Kumar (PW-2) and Bhagwan Singh Chauhan (PW-7) have not supported the proceedings of the memorandum statement Exs. P-4 and P-5 and seizure memo Exs. P-6 and P-7 but have not denied their signature on them. The memorandum and seizure proceedings are proved by the statement of the investigating officer Ramswaroop Dewangan. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Dr. M. Nirala (PW-12) has given his opinion regarding the knives presented before him that the injuries on Deepak Naidu's body could have been caused by the seized knife and death could have been caused by the seized knife. 36. It has also come to light in the evidence that before the incident, the deceased had a dispute with the father of accused Arshad. It was this dispute and animosity which became the motive for murder. The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances incriminating them can also be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. It has also come to light in the evidence that before the incident, the deceased had a dispute with the father of accused Arshad. It was this dispute and animosity which became the motive for murder. The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances incriminating them can also be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused have not given any explanation except a general denial of all the incriminating circumstances. 37. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the deceased was of criminal nature and he had enmity with many people. As far as the murder of Deepak Naidu is concerned, the accused in this case are accused of his murder. There is no evidence to imagine that the deceased was murdered by anyone other than the accused. 38. There are some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses presented by the prosecution, but they are not such fundamental flaws that the entire prosecution story can be doubted. The circumstantial evidence available on record is consistent with pointing out the sole hypothesis of the accused being guilty alone. It is also not proved that the accused have been falsely implicated due to enmity. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that accused Arshad Khan and Syed Nadeem are proved guilty of criminal conspiracy to murder Deepak Naidu and murder Deepak Naidu in furtherance of common intention under Section 120B and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 39. In relation to the knife seized in the case, a copy of the State Government's notification number 6312-65522 dated 22nd November 1974 has been produced in the case as Ex.P-26, which is a public document, according to which, possession or carrying of sharp-edged weapons having a blade more than 6 inches long or more than 2 inches wide and of any shape having a spring is prohibited in public places. The length of the knife seized from accused Arshad is 29 cm including the handle and the length of the blade is 19 cm and the length of the handle is 10 cm. The length of the knife seized from accused Arshad is 29 cm including the handle and the length of the blade is 19 cm and the length of the handle is 10 cm. Similarly, the total length of knife seized from accused Syed Nadeem is 29 cm, the length of the blade is 17 cm, the width of the middle part and the length of the handle is 12 cm. According to Section 25 (1b) (b) of the Arms Act, whoever, in any place specified by notification under Section 4, acquires, keeps in his possession or carries any weapon of such class or description as specified in the notification in violation of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. According to the statement of the investigator, the length and width of the knife seized from the accused Arshad Khan and Syed Nadeem is in accordance with the prohibited knife mentioned in the notification. It is proved by the evidence that the accused Arshad Khan and Syed Nadeem kept the knife in violation of the notification issued by the government and used the said knife in committing the incident. Resultantly, the offences alleged against accused Arshad Khan and Syed Nadeem under Sections 25(1-b)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act are proved. 40. For the foregoing reasons, the CRA No. 627 of 2023 filed on behalf of appellant- Arshad Khan and CRA No. 723 of 2023 filed on behalf of appellant - Syed Nadeem @ Bada Monu are dismissed. It is stated that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the concerned trial Court. 41. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.