JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused-appellant Sokaram @ Chogaram, son of Shri Daling ji, assailing the validity of judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali, Pali, (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 1/2015, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offence:-. 302 IPC Life imprisonment with a Fine of Rs.15,000/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months SI 2. As per prosecution case, on 09.11.2014, the complainant Nanaram (PW-04) lodged a written report at Police Station Sadri stating therein that his sister, Sonki, had been married to accused- appellant Chogaram, son of Dalingji five years ago, as per the Nata tradition prevailing in their society. It was alleged that the couple had taken agricultural land on lease from Otaramji Chaudhary resident of Sadri ka Bera for cultivation during the relevant year. Approximately 6–7 days prior to the incident, Sonki had visited her parental home at Walra along with her children and, thereafter, returned back to Sadri Muthana. On 07.11.2014, she telephonically informed that her husband was assaulting her. On 08.11.2014, the complainant received information that Sonki’s dead body was lying in a room situated on the bera (well) of Otaram Chaudhary. Upon reaching the Place of occurrence along with his younger brother, they found her body in the said room. On making inquiries from the neighbours’, it was revealed that on the night of 07.11.2014, at about 10–11 PM, a quarrel had taken place between Sonki and the accused-appellant Chogaram, and the neighbours had intervened to pacify them. The complainant alleged that the accused-appellant assaulted Sonki with the intention to kill her, causing grievous injuries, which resulted her death. 3. On the basis of the above written report, a formal FIR No.191/14 (Ex.P-06) was lodged at Police Station Sadri, Pali against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302 of IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge- sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the same and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. 4. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge- sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the same and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-26. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which he stated that the prosecution witnesses were deposing falsely and had given false evidence. He further asserted that at the time of incident, he was not at Otaram ka Bera and was at Mewar for hiring labourers and that he came to know about the incident only when the police informed him and took him to the place of occurrence. In his defence, the accused-appellant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. 8. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated06.02.2020. 9. Hence the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. It was argued that there existed material contradictions, manipulations and irregularities in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; however, despite these glaring infirmities, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution’s story regarding the “last seen” evidence, allegedly witnessed by Hiralal (P.W. 1), is wholly unreliable. During cross-examination before the learned Trial Court, P.W. 1 categorically stated that he had never visited Otaram’s bera either prior to the incident or thereafter. He further deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was at his own house and was not present at the ‘bera’, and that he did not even know when the incident took place. Learned counsel submits that P.W. 1 also stated that the police had obtained his signatures on Exhibit No.1 in the presence of the Investigating Officer and that he had signed the document only because the police had called him to the police station. Learned counsel submits that P.W. 1 also stated that the police had obtained his signatures on Exhibit No.1 in the presence of the Investigating Officer and that he had signed the document only because the police had called him to the police station. This, according to learned counsel, demolishes the prosecution’s theory of “last seen”. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that although the death of Sonki is stated to have occurred on 08.11.2014 and the Investigating Officer had allegedly received information regarding the same, the prosecution has failed to produce the daily diary report to substantiate the Investigating Officer’s visit to the place of occurrence on the relevant date. It was contended that the prosecution neither examined the neighbours of the crime scene nor mentioned in the site plan the details of the adjoining houses. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged eyewitnesses, P.W. 9 Khartingram and P.W. 8 Mohanlal, had turned completely hostile. Similarly, P.W. 1 Hiralal and P.W. 6 Otaram, who were stated to have informed the police about the incident, did not support the prosecution case, and Otaram denied having given any such information to the police. P.W. 6 Otaram, the owner of the ‘bera’ where the incident is alleged to have taken place, also turned hostile and denied having any knowledge of the occurrence. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Punmiya had stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused in a vehicular accident. He further submitted that the recovery of the alleged weapon (shovel) was itself doubtful, as P.W. 17 Jaswant Singh Investigating Officer deposed that it was recovered from behind the well, whereas P.W. 1 Hiralal contradicted this by stating that the shovel was recovered from behind the room, thereby creating a serious doubt regarding the alleged recovery. It was also pointed out that the recovery witnesses, Chagan Lal (P.W. 10) and Hiralal (P.W.1), had turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case on the point of recovery. 15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that key prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 2 Vajaram and P.W. 3 Nenaram, as well as the brothers of the deceased, P.W. 13 Asharam and P.W. 14 Pakaram, and even the complainant Nanaram (P.W. 4), had all turned hostile, thereby striking at the root of the prosecution case. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that key prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 2 Vajaram and P.W. 3 Nenaram, as well as the brothers of the deceased, P.W. 13 Asharam and P.W. 14 Pakaram, and even the complainant Nanaram (P.W. 4), had all turned hostile, thereby striking at the root of the prosecution case. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that though the deceased’s children were said to be present in the house at the time of the incident, no investigation whatsoever was conducted by the Investigating Officer in this regard from them, depriving the Court of potentially crucial evidence. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused-appellant Sokaram @ Chogaram was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time and had gone to Mewar to hire labourers, a common practice among farmers who often leave their families behind during such visits. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused came to know of the incident only when the police informed him and thereafter accompanied him to the spot. 18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that no witness has testified that it is the accused-appellant, who has committed the alleged offence, and several prosecution witnesses, including the alleged eyewitnesses and even the relatives of the deceased, have turned hostile, thereby completely demolishing the prosecution case. He further submitted that the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution is fabricated and unreliable, and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are therefore, vague, perverse, contrary to settled principles of law, and based on hearsay and uncorroborated evidence. In view of the material contradictions, hostile witnesses, and absence of credible evidence, learned counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2020 may be quashed and set aside. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the prosecution case set out before the learned trial court and he submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment dated 06.02.2020. 20. We have considered the submissions made before this Court and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case, including the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2020. 21. 20. We have considered the submissions made before this Court and have carefully examined the relevant record of the case, including the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2020. 21. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that on the basis of the written report (Exhibit P-5) submitted by Nanaram, a First Information Report (Exhibit P-6) was registered. In the FIR, Nanaram stated that on 07.11.2014 his sister Sonki had telephonically informed him that her husband, the accused Sokaram @ Chogaram, had beaten her. He further stated that on the same night, at about 10–11 PM, a quarrel took place between Sonki and the accused, during which the accused severely assaulted her, causing grievous injuries resulting in her death. However, when the complainant Nanaram was examined as P.W.- 4, he turned hostile and denied the facts mentioned in the FIR, including the information received from his sister and the alleged quarrel. He denied having knowledge of the contents of Exhibit P- 5. Nonetheless, he admitted that his sister Sonki and the accused Chogaram were engaged in agricultural work at Sadri and that he had seen injuries on her head. He also admitted that Sonki and the accused resided at the place of incident with their children. 22. Similarly, the deceased’s brothers, P.W.-13 Asharam and P.W.-14 Pakaram, also turned hostile. However, both witnesses admitted that the deceased Sonki was living at the ‘bera’ with the accused-appellant shortly before her death. P.W.-14 stated that he had seen the dead body of his sister in a room at Muthana having head injury and dried blood on her head. Though he denied who caused the injuries to the deceased, but he admitted that Sonki died due to a head injury. Thus, although the prosecution witnesses turned hostile on several material aspects, but all three brothers of the deceased consistently stated in their statements that the accused Sokaram @ Chogaram was farming and residing at the place of occurrence with the deceased and their children. 23. The most material witness in this case is P.W.-1 Hiralal. Thus, although the prosecution witnesses turned hostile on several material aspects, but all three brothers of the deceased consistently stated in their statements that the accused Sokaram @ Chogaram was farming and residing at the place of occurrence with the deceased and their children. 23. The most material witness in this case is P.W.-1 Hiralal. He stated that a day before the deceased’s body was discovered, he had seen the accused beating, abusing and threatening his wife Sonki at Otaram’s Bera, saying, “I will kill her.” He further stated that though the accused calmed down after being persuaded, he again quarreled with his wife at about 10–11 PM that night, and the sounds of the quarrel continued for a long time before suddenly ceasing. On the following day, at about 6 PM, when none of the family members were seen and blood was noticed outside the room, the body of Sonki was found lying inside the room. The witness further stated that the accused-appellant was regularly consuming alcohol and used to quarrel with his wife on a daily basis . This testimony clearly establishes that the accused had quarreled with and assaulted the deceased shortly before her death and that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused-appellant. 24. P.W.-1 Hiralal also stated that upon hearing the sounds of beating and shouting, he went at the place of occurrence along with Khartingram and Chhaganlal. Although P.W.-9 Khartingram turned hostile, he admitted that his ‘bera’ and Otaram’s ‘bera’ were close to each other, though he denied accompanying Hiralal. His hostility does not affect the core of Hiralal’s testimony, which remained unshaken despite detailed cross-examination. Notably, no animosity was suggested between P.W.-1 and the accused, nor was it suggested that the accused was not present at the ‘bera’ on the fateful day. 25. As regards the recovery, P.W.-17 Jaswant Singh, the Investigating Officer, stated that after the arrest of the accused, and on the basis of the information furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a blood-stained iron shovel with a wooden handle was recovered through memo Exhibit P-26 in the presence of witnesses Hiralal and Chaganlal. This fact was corroborated by P.W.-1 Hiralal, who stated that on 17.11.2014 the accused led the police to the recovery of the said weapon from behind a room at the ‘bera’. This fact was corroborated by P.W.-1 Hiralal, who stated that on 17.11.2014 the accused led the police to the recovery of the said weapon from behind a room at the ‘bera’. Although P.W.-10 Chaganlal turned hostile and denied the recovery in his presence, he admitted his signatures on the recovery memo (Exhibit P-1), the sketch map (Exhibit P-2), and the site verification report (Exhibit P-3). He did not allege any coercion or pressure. Thus, the recovery of the blood-stained weapon at the instance of the accused stands duly proved . The argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the description of the recovery site differs from the sketch map is without substance thus, of no avail. Exhibit P-3 makes it clear that the shovel was recovered from behind the room, and minor differences in wording do not render the recovery doubtful. 26. P.W.-17 Jaswant Singh further stated that the deceased Sonki’s blood-stained blouse (Exhibit P-22), as well as samples of blood-stained soil (Exhibit P-23) and plain soil (Exhibit P-24), was seized. Though P.W.-4 Nanaram and other witnesses denied handing over the blouse or witnessing the seizure procedures, they admitted their signatures on the memos. All seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur, and the FSL report (Exhibit P-27) confirms that human blood of group ‘B’ was found on the shovel, blood-stained soil, and the blouse. This scientific evidence further connects the accused to the weapon used for commission of the offence 27. Insofar as the plea of alibi raised by the accused-appellant Chogaram in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, wherein he claimed that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and had gone to Mewar to hire labourers, it is significant to note here that no evidence has been adduced by the accused-appellant in support of his assertion. On the contrary, the clear and consistent testimony of P.W.-1 Hiralal firmly establishes the presence of the accused at the place of incident shortly before the occurrence . Moreover, no suggestion was put to this witness during cross-examination indicating that the accused was elsewhere at the relevant time. Consequently, the defence plea appears to be wholly untenable and is liable to be rejected. 28. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, P.W.-5 Dr. Moreover, no suggestion was put to this witness during cross-examination indicating that the accused was elsewhere at the relevant time. Consequently, the defence plea appears to be wholly untenable and is liable to be rejected. 28. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, P.W.-5 Dr. Rajendra Punamiya, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Sonki and prepared the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-11), deposed that the deceased had sustained the following injuries:- (I) An incised wound on the left arm measuring 10 × 5 × 5 cm; (II) An incised wound on the left fronto-parietal region measuring 10 × 5.5 cm, deep to the bone; (III) An incised wound on the left parietal area measuring 6 × 5 cm, deep to the bone; and (IV) An incised wound on the right elbow measuring 2 × 4 × 2 cm. 29. He opined that the cause of death was excessive bleeding resulting from the injuries to the head and face. He further stated the time of death was approximately 24 to 36 hours prior to the post-mortem, which was conducted at 1:00 PM on 09.11.2014. Thus, the medical evidence confirms that the death of Sonki occurred between midnight of 07.11.2014 and 08.11.2014 due to bleeding. 30. As to the contentions regarding delay in lodging of the FIR and not producing the daily diary report, the evidence shows that the body was discovered at about 6 PM on 08.11.2014; the police was informed accordingly; and the FIR was lodged in the next morning. This delay is reasonably explained and does not in any manner affect the prosecution case. 31. The legal position relating to the “last seen theory” is well settled. In Dalip Malik Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2017 SC 1133 , it has been held that when the deceased was last seen with the accused, the burden shifts on the accused to explain the circumstances thereafter. In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2018 SC 2142 , the Supreme Court held that though the last seen theory is a weak piece of evidence, when coupled with other circumstances and the absence of explanation by the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it can form the basis of conviction. In the present case, the deceased was last seen alive with the accused inside the room situated at Otaram ka bera. In the present case, the deceased was last seen alive with the accused inside the room situated at Otaram ka bera. The accused has offered no explanation as to the circumstances in which Sonki sustained fatal injuries. On the contrary, the prosecution has proved all relevant circumstances through cogent and reliable evidence, forming a complete chain leading to the only conclusion that the accused committed the offence. 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anees vs. The State Govt. of NCT decided on 03.05.2024 reported in AIR 2024 SC 2297 in para No.57 and 58 has held as under:- “57. In Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan , 1979 SCC (Cri) 56, it was observed that where the evidence of the Investigating Officer who discovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to discovery need not be rejected on the ground that the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2001) 9 SCC362. 58. In Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2004) 10 SCC 657 , it was further held: 10. ... even if Panch witness turn hostile which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. 59. Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama, the conduct of the Appellant herein would be relevant Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as this Court observed in A.N. Venkatesh and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka , (2005) 7 SCC 714 : 9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the Accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. Vs. State of Karnataka , (2005) 7 SCC 714 : 9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the Accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the Accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct Under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the Accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979) 3 SCC 90 . Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the Accused-Appellants (Ex. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant Under Section 8. ...” 33. The Court also placed reliance upon the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein the principles governing conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence were authoritatively laid down. (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established; (ii) The facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and not explainable on any other reasonable hypothesis; (iii) The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved; and (v) There must be a complete chain of evidence which leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that, in all human probability, the act was committed by the accused. 34. These principles form the guiding framework for assessing the evidentiary value of the circumstances proved in the present case 35. Therefore, from the above discussion and analysis, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 07.11.2014, at about 10–11 PM, at Otaram Chaudhary ka bera situated at Muthana, the accused Shokaram @ Chhogaram intentionally inflicted multiple injuries on his wife Sonki with a sharp-edged weapon (shovel), causing her death. 36. Therefore, from the above discussion and analysis, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 07.11.2014, at about 10–11 PM, at Otaram Chaudhary ka bera situated at Muthana, the accused Shokaram @ Chhogaram intentionally inflicted multiple injuries on his wife Sonki with a sharp-edged weapon (shovel), causing her death. 36. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have also heard learned counsel for accused-appellant and have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the entire material available on record. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, we find that the learned trial Court, looking to the circumstantial evidence of last seen of the accused appellant with the deceased, has rightly convicted and sentenced him for the aforementioned offences. Thus, we find no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of learned trial Court. Hence, impugned judgment dated06.02.2020 is upheld. 38. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 39. Office is directed to send the record to the learned trial Court forthwith.