P.D. Kode, J.@mdashBy present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.1.2004 convicting them for commission of offence of murder of one Dashrath Charmya Kale and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five Hundred only) each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 6/2003 of the said Court. The said case has arisen out of chargesheet submitted by Risod Police Station in the Court JMFC, Risod against the appellants for commission of offence u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC after investigation of crime registered vide FIR 173/02 Exh. 18 registered upon report of incident Exh.16 lodged by mother-in-law PW 1 Laxmibai of said deceased Dashrath on 30.10.2002. PW 8 PSI Vikramsingh Thakur of said Police Station had recorded said report, registered and investigated said crime.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed from said report Exh. 16 lodged by PW 1 with Risod Police Station of the appellants having killed the deceased by means of knife is as follows:
PW 1 Laxmibai was residing in neighbourhood of her brothers deceased Dashrath and Rama at Risod. About 14 years back from day of incident Savita, elder daughter of PW 1 Laxmibai, had married Dashrath and thus PW 1 was also his mother-in-law. On 29.10.2002 at about 4 p.m. while PW 1 was at house, her cousin i.e. the appellant No. 1 along with with his wife-appellant No. 2 had been to house of Dashrath and had questioned him as to why Dashrath had beaten their son Kishor and, thereafter, they had started quarreling with Dashrath. PW6 Badami, mother of PW 1 and Dashrath, had separated quarrel. Appellants then had threatened Dashrath that they would see him lateron. Again at about 7.30 PM while Dashrath was having his meals in the house, appellants had been in front of house of Dashrath and taken him along with them towards house of maternal cousin of PW 1 i.e. PW 7 Dagdabai wife of Datta Pawar.
At about midnight, appellant No. 1 had been in front of the house of PW 6. PW 1 had then got up. Appellant No. 1 had asked PW 6 whether Dashrya had returned to the house. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 along with appellant No. 2 had been away from the said place. Since 7.00 a.m. PW 1, her mother PW 6, her sisters and other relatives were in search of Dashrath. PW 7 had appraised them that at about 8 o''clock in the night when she had been in front of her house, Dashrath and appellants were standing in front of her house. Appellant No. 1 had taken money out of pocket of Dashrath and had ran and brought country made liquor ''Santra'' from country liquor shop and, thereafter, all three of them had been towards field on the rear side of house through lane passing by the house of Shankarappa. At that time both the appellants were carrying knives. Thereon PW 1 and her companions had made search for Dashrath in fields at rear side of the house.
Initially one blood smeared dusky white coffee shawl (Article A) of appellant No. 1 and woolen ear-strip belonging to appellant No. 2 were noticed lying in the field of Raju Mohale. As they went ahead in search Dashrath at about 9.30 AM they had seen dead body of Dashrath with injuries on chest, abdomen with neck cut by knife, lying in supine condition in thorny fencing of the northern side embankment in the field of Shri Ingle.
3. At trial appellants had pleaded not guilty to charge Exh. 5 framed on 23.7.2003. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses i.e. above referred PW 1, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8 and additionally PW 4 Rajesh on the point of having heard quarrel in between deceased and the appellants at about 12 midnight in the relevant night in a field behind his house; PW 5 Dr. Ramesh Maskey, who had performed post-mortem of the corpse of deceased at Rural Hospital, Risod, panch PW 2 Pitambar for spot panchanama Exh.18 and seizure of shawl Article A of appellant No. 1, muffler Article B of appellant No. 2 and knife Article A and B stained with blood found lying at the spot and inquest panchanama Exh. 20 and seizure of blood stained clothes of deceased Article C and D and panch PW 3 Sheikh Rafiq for seizure panchanama Exh. 23 regarding seizure of blood stained ash colour saree Article G and lining shirt Article H respectively produced by appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 from their house.
4. The defence of both appellants at the trial was that of total denial and of false implication. Each of the appellant to the questions put to him/her during examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. about circumstances appearing against him/her in the prosecution evidence had answered either same being false or he/she being unaware of the same. None of the appellant had assigned any specific reason for the witnesses having falsely deposed against him.
5. The prosecution had mainly relied upon the circumstantial evidence for establishing guilt of the appellants i.e. the circumstances established from oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution at trial of the nature of appellants having quarreled with the deceased, later on soon prior to the death being in company of the deceased, human blood stained Articles of the appellants knives, shawl, muffler being found in a field nearby the body of the deceased, their clothes being found stained with blood etc. The Trial Court after assessment of evidence had come to the conclusion of the said circumstance being established by the prosecution. The trial court on the basis of the same had come to the conclusion of the appellants being guilty for commission of offence of murder of deceased and convicted and sentenced each of them as stated earlier.
6. Mr. R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of the arguments has vehemently contended that trial Court had manifestly erred in taking into consideration incriminating circumstances not put to the appellants during their examination effected u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. i.e. shawl Article A allegedly of appellant No. 1 and muffler Article B allegedly of appellant No. 2 and knives Article B and the clothes and findings of CA report thereto and had further erred in relying upon the same while coming to the conclusion of guilt of the appellants being conclusively established by the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution inclusive of such circumstances. The learned Counsel has urged of same being not permissible in the law, the conclusion reached and order of conviction based upon the same is vitiated and on said ground alone the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court was liable to be quashed and aside.
7. In view of such contentions raised, after hearing both the sides at length upon relevant aspect and considering the decisions of Apex Court cited by both parties for detailed reasons recorded in the order dated 15.1.2010 on the basis of the law pronounced by earlier decision of three Judges'' of the Apex Court in the case of
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants upon instructions from the appellants had informed that the investigating officer had not collected the blood of the appellants nor sent the same to the Chemical Analyser and had taken the blood of the deceased from the spot and sprinkled the same on weapon and clothes.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellants further urged that even the circumstance relied by the prosecution are not clinchingly established by the evidence relied for the said purpose by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence failed to establish of there being sufficient motive for commission of such serious offence by the appellants. The quarrel over beating of son of appellants is hopelessly inadequate for affording reason for commission of such crime. Though it is true that in cases of direct evidence establishing of motive may not be a significant factor still in cases resting upon circumstantial evidence said aspect is of immense importance and from the said angle the said failure on part of prosecution is fatal to the prosecution case. With regard the articles found at the spot i.e. shawl, muffler and dagger/knife and the clothes seized from the house of the appellants, the prosecution evidence has failed to establish that appellants were wearing such articles in the relevant night and as such finding of such articles at the spot loses all significance or at least the same fails to connect the appellants with the crime. Additionally investigating officer having failed to collect/send blood of the appellants to the Chemical Analyser and, therefore, merely because the said articles were containing human blood stains and or some of them of B Group i.e. similar to that of deceased, the same would not be a circumstance of any consequence.
10. The prosecution evidence is not cogent to establish clinchingly the precise time at which appellants were in the company of the deceased prior to his death. The evidence of PW4 Rajesh failed to establish that he had seen the same at 12 midnight as his evidence failed to reveal that he had seen them quarreling in the said field and recognized them on the basis of identification of voice and that too while sleeping in the house. Thus even accepting the evidence of other witnesses i.e. PW 1, PW 6 and PW7 as it is, the same does not reveal the appellants being in company of the deceased after 8 pm in the said night. Hence even taking into consideration all the circumstances allegedly established by the prosecution, the same by themselves fails to point towards the guilt of the accused. Such a conclusion is inevitable as there exists no small gap in between last seen theory and finding of dead body in the morning at about 9.30 am. The said evidence does not rule out the possibility of the deceased being killed by his other enemy. As a result aforesaid circumstances being incapable of leading to sole inference about the guilt of the appellants, both of them deserve to be acquitted.
11. The learned Counsel also placed reliance upon the following decisions:
i) Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P. reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1533 (SC),
ii) Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor v. Yashpal and Anr. reported in 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 69,
12. The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the evidence on record clearly established circumstances making out a case of leading to the both appellants having committed the offence of murder of the deceased. He urged that motive for crime is established by the evidence of PW 1 and PW 6. Deceased being taken away at 7.30 pm by the appellants is also established by evidence of PW 1 & PW 7. The deceased being taken away by the appellants at about 8 pm being established by the evidence of PW 7, while appellants quarreling in the field with the deceased is established by the evidence of PW 4. The evidence of PW 6 also established that the appellants had asked her in the midnight whether deceased had returned. The fact of deceased lying dead with injuries on person in fencing of field is established by evidence of PW 1, PW 6 , PW 7 and their said evidence is corroborated by the matters stated in spot panchanama Exh. 18. The fact of shawl of appellant No. 1 and muffler of appellant No. 2 (bearing human blood stains as established by CA report) and blood stained dagger/knife of appellants being found at the spot is established by spot panchanama Exh. 18 considered along with the evidence of PW 2, PW 1, PW 7 and PW 8. The evidence of PW 1 is found duly corroborated by matters stated in report Exh. 16 lodged by her immediately at about 10 a.m. with the Police. The prosecution has also established abscondence of the appellants by the evidence of PW 6 and investigating officer PW 8. The appellants have failed to give the explanation to the said circumstance and the circumstance of their house being found locked and having left the children with father-in-law as established by evidence of PW 6. The alleged omission on part of PW 6 being not in the nature of contradiction the said matters are not liable to be discarded. The learned APP thus urged that considering the relationship of the parties, the place at which the offence had taken place hardly there is any appreciable gap in between the circumstance of appellants being seen last in the company of the deceased prior to death, the same by itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion about the appellants being perpetrators of the crime as they have failed to explain the said circumstance. The asking of an appellant to PW 6 whether deceased had returned to the house etc. clearly appears to be a farce made by them and the same is apparent after taking into consideration other circumstances established by the prosecution. All the said circumstances apart from having effect of corroborating conclusion of guilt of the appellants emerging from the circumstance of last seen, additionally cumulative effect of all the circumstances leads only to the conclusion of guilt of appellants as rightly arrived by the trial Court and as such there are no merits in the appeal and the same should be dismissed.
13. The learned APP, in support of his submission, also placed reliance upon the following decisions:
i)
ii)
14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the record and the decisions relied. At the out set it can be safely said that the prosecution case purely rests upon circumstantial evidence. Out of the circumstances relied by the prosecution, apart from the appellants having not disputed of deceased having homicidal death, the said fact is apparently established from the unchallenged part of the evidence of PW 1, PW 4, PW 6 & PW 7 regarding the place at which his body was found with the injuries on the person and relevant part of the evidence of PW 2 Pitambar pertaining to articles found in nearby vicinity of dead body. The said evidence is also found well corroborated spot panchanama Exh. 18, inquest panchanama Exh. 20 and so also the evidence of PW 5 Doctor who had performed post mortem and his PM notes at Exh. 27.
15. Out of them reference to the evidence of PW 5 who had performed the post mortem on 30.10.2002 while being attached at Rural Hospital, Risod, clearly reveals that he has noted 9 external stab injuries on the person of the deceased with 1 cut injury over throat of dimensions 6 X 6 X 3 cm and 4 abrasions as recorded by him in column No. 17 of PM notes. His evidence also reveals of having noticed internal injuries to the effect of fracture of thyroid bone over both the sides, fracture of second rib at left side near stearnal line and fracture of caricoid cartilage with all tracheal injuries.
16. The evidence PW 5 also reveals that all the said injuries were caused within 24 hours from the time of himself performing post mortem and the injuries excepting abrasion noticed by him could be caused by sharp edged weapon, while the other injuries were possible by hard and blunt object. All the said injuries were ante mortem with external injuries corresponding to internal injuries caused. He had opined of the said injuries being of grievous nature and the death had been caused due to hemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury and multiple stab injuries over chest and abdomen noticed. He had also opined of injuries No. 1 to 10 being possible by knife Article 3 while the remaining injuries were possible by knife article C. Thus taking into consideration all the said evidence , it can be safely said that by the same the prosecution having established the deceased having met with homicidal death due to the injuries caused to him. It also establishes of the said injuries being possible by means of weapons before the trial Court i.e. the dagger and knife found at the spot and identified by the witnesses being the knife which were with the appellants.
17. Now reverting to the moot question of the prosecution having established circumstances establishing guilt of the appellants. Considering the evidence of PW 1 in light of the criticism advanced the same definitely establishes that on the said day at about 4 p.m. quarrel had ensued in between deceased and the appellants on the count of the child and the same was pacified by her mother PW 6 Badami.
18. Her further evidence also reveals her cousin PW 7 having told her that about 7.30 PM both the appellants had been to the house of the deceased while he was taking meals and appellant No. 1 had caught hold of deceased and taken him towards the house of PW 7 and at the said place appellant No. 1 has taken out money from the pocket of the deceased and taken him to liquor-den. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 had taken deceased to the field of Mulabai and appellant No. 2 was accompanying appellant No. 1 all the while. Both the appellants were then possessing knife with them.
19. Her further evidence discloses that at about 1.00 AM in the night appellant No. 1 again had been to the house of deceased and asked mother of the deceased PW 6 about arrival of Dashrath at home. Her further evidence relates to search made by them in the morning for Dashrath having noticed blood stained Shawl of appellant No. 1 and blood stained Muffler of appellant No. 2 lying in the said field and also having dead body of Dashrath in the fencing of the field with bleeding injuries on neck, stomach and chest with neck being cut with knife. It also discloses of herself having lodged FIR Exh. 16 against the appellants.
20. Close scrutiny of her evidence does not reveal any tangible material being elicited during the cross examination rendering her evidence unbelievable. The matters elicited during the cross examination in the nature of omissions of herself having not told the police of the appellants (i) while taking away deceased having held his hand or (ii) having not stated of appellant No. 1 taking Dashrath to liquor-den or (iii) her inability to assign the reason for the same, clearly appears to be trifle nature. Needless to add that the said matters or further matters put to her which were denied by her cannot be said to be having any effect of rendering evidence given by her unbelievable or unacceptable. Needless to add that the said matters will be required to be held established are as the same are found corroborated by matters stated by her in FIR Exh. 16 and so also the evidence of PW 6 Badami and PW 7 Dagdabai.
21. Now considering the evidence of PW 6 Badami, who is mother of the deceased and so also PW 1, also reveals a corroborative account given by her regarding the quarrel occurred in between both the appellants and Dashrath at about 4.30 PM on account of beating of Kishore, son of the appellant, by the deceased and threats given by the appellants to the deceased. The same also reveals further corroborative account given by her regarding at 7.30 PM appellants again having been to their house and appellant No. 1 having caught hold of Dashrath and having taken him along with him and appellant No. 2 having followed them. Her evidence also discloses of both the appellants again having been to her house at 12.00 to 1.00 in the night and having informed her that Dashrath was sleeping with them in the field at Mohali but they were not knowing as to where he had been thereafter. It also discloses of herself having got suspicion about them as she had seen knives with them when they had been to her house earlier. It also discloses that thereafter she had made efforts for searching Dashrath but was unable to trace for whole night. It also discloses that she had been to the house of the appellants but their door was locked and they were not found in the house along with the children and having left their children with the residence of father-in-law of appellant No. 1.
22. Further evidence of PW 6 discloses of herself having roamed in the village whole night, she could not sleep, early in the field having been to the field of Mohali and having witnessed blood stained knife in the field of Mohali with blood stained shawl of appellant No. 1 and muffler of appellant No. 2 lying in the said field and the corpse of the deceased in fencing with the injuries on chest and abdomen and so also neck cut.
23. Now scrutiny of the evidence reveals of omission about her claim of quarrel so also about the threats given being brought on the record. Similarly the omissions in respect of the claim of having seen knife in the hand of the accused, having been to the house of the appellants, having found door locked, accused having escaped along with children, having left the children at the residence of father-in-law and hidden in the bushes, having witnessed blood stained knife on the spot of the incident or so also shawl and muffler etc. being brought on the record. The scrutiny of her evidence does not reveal any other circumstances being brought on the record rendering her other evidence unbelievable and thus the same would deserve due credence.
24. Now considering the effect of the omissions from her evidence brought on the record and out of them her claim of having seen knives with the appellants will be required to be excluded after considering the same on the preponderance of probability. The same is obvious as even it is not the case of the witness that any occasion has arisen for taking out the knives during the quarrel ensued in between the appellants and deceased about which she has deposed. However, with regard to the other aspects since the said matter apparently being not in the nature of the contradiction with further claim staked by her and on the contrary being consistent with natural conduct of mother who had received information from the appellants of deceased being missing from the field in which he was sleeping, it is difficult to accept her further evidence regarding the search made by her. Since deceased had left in the company of the appellants and the appellants had informed her about himself being missing her claim of having gone to their house etc. also cannot be said to be unnatural claim. The same is the case about her claim of in the morning during search herself having found things and corpse in the field. Thus, judging on the preponderance of probability and expected conduct of mother whose son was missing the said part of her evidence will not be liable to be discarded due to omissions regarding the same being brought on the record. Needless to add thus excepting the matters liable to be discarded as observed earlier, her rest of the claim will be required to be accepted.
25. Now considering the evidence of PW 7 the same in terms reveals of having seen appellants and deceased coming in front of her house at about 8.00 PM while she was sitting in the door. The same also reveals of appellant No. 1 started checking pockets of deceased, having demanded money from deceased, in spite of reluctance of deceased, appellant No. 1 having taken out money from the pocket of deceased, having gone to liquor shop and having returned by purchasing liquor where deceased and appellant No. 2 were standing and all of them having gone in the field of Mohali. It also reveals of PW 7 having witnessed knife in the hands of both the appellants, her further part of evidence relates to her aunty PW 6 being to her house in the morning and having asked about the Dashrath. It also discloses of PW 7 having told them of having seen Dashrath lastly on previous night with the appellants and having disclosed everything to them witnessed by her. Her further part of evidence relates to the search made and having found blood stained knives, blood stained shawl of appellant No. 1 and blood stained muffler of appellant No. 2 and corpse of deceased in the Mohali field with the injuries as deposed by PW 1. She has also identified the knives before the court being the same knife and so also about shawl and muffler being the same which was found in the said field.
26. Now scrutiny of her evidence reveals that her statement was not recorded by the police. It also reveals that she was frightened and had been to Hingoli to the house of her daughter. It also reveals that she had seen the appellants and Dashrath from distance of 15 feet from her house. Beyond the said matters the cross examination effected does not reveal any circumstance being brought on record for not accepting the matters spoken by her. It is true that her statement was not recorded by the police. However, taking into consideration her evidence that she was frightened and had been to Hingoli to the house of her daughter and no other material being brought on record, it is difficult to reject her testimony on the count of her statement being not recorded during course of investigation. Such a conclusion is inevitable as one of the prime object of recording a statement being to rule out the possibility of false witness being roped by the prosecution at the later stage of proceeding and such a possibility apparently being not spelt out and/or brought on the record during the cross examination. Since the criminal trials are required to be decided on the basis of substantive evidence with due opportunity for adversary to test the same, her evidence inspiring confidence will not be liable to be rejected on the ground urged by learned Counsel for appellants. However, the caution will require to seek a corroboration for her evidence and so also the same will be required to be tested on the touchstone of probability factor.
27. Thus from such an angle considering her evidence and same being found corroborated by evidence of PW 1 and PW 6 and nowhere the defence having thrown a challenge that at the relevant time she was not residing at the relevant place, merely because of the suggestion put of herself having not seen the matters, her evidence will not be liable to be rejected for the matters which are corroborated. However, considering in proper perspective the events which she had claimed to have occurred in front of her house and the same by itself not denoting any occasion of herself getting a chance to see the dagger/knife with the appellants, if any, it is difficult to accept the said claim. The same is obvious as her account of an incident of the said event does not reveal any occasion having arisen for appellants taking out the dagger/knife and so also it will be highly improbable to expect appellants then would have been moving with knives in their hands. In view of the same, her said claim will be required to be discarded and consequently the prosecution submission of such a facet being established by them through her evidence.
28. In the aforesaid context having due regard to the tendency of the witnesses to intermix the facts pertaining to the subsequent events merely because of discarding of some facets of evidence PW 6 and PW7, entire evidence of each of them will not be liable to be discarded. The same will not be liable to be discarded in view of the tendency of the witnesses to intermix the facts about which they had gained knowledge later on ,while giving the evidence, the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not been found applied in our country.
29. Now reverting to the evidence of PW 4 the same reveals a claim being staked by him that in the relevant night while sleeping in the house he had heard a quarrel between deceased and appellants in his field on the rear side of his house. However, considering the nature of said claim staked by him it will be difficult to place much reliance upon the same. However, his further claim of having seen appellant No. 1 and deceased being seen roaming in their locality one day prior to himself receiving information about the death of deceased on the next day morning from the mother of the deceased and, thereafter, himself having seen body of the deceased in the field and having noticed injuries as noticed by the other witnesses on the said body will not be liable to be discarded only on the count of his claim of seeing them in company being in the nature of omission brought on the record. Needless to add the same will not be liable to be rejected due to same being somewhat corroborated by the other evidence on record.
30. In addition to the aforesaid considering the evidence of the panch witnesses PW 2 Pitambar in light of the matters from inquest panchanama Exh. 20, seizure of clothes of the deceased, panch witness PW 3 Shaikh Rafiq regarding seizure of the clothes of the accused under panchanama Exh. 24 and particularly the evidence of investigation officer (PW 8) and considering the same in proper perceptive, the same duly corroborates the aforesaid evidence regarding the relevant facets and also establishes the articles seized from the field i.e. knives, shawl and muffler were found stained with blood.
31. Thus reappreciating the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and discarding the circumstances not established by the same, the submission of the learned APP of the prosecution having the circumstances is found to be justified to the tune of having established : (a) the deceased having met with homicidal death, (b) prior to the day of his death deceased at about 4.00 pm he had quarrel with the appellants on the count of beating of their son by deceased at his house, (c) on the same day at about 7.30 pm appellants had been to the house of deceased and taken him away from the house, (d) at about 8.00 pm in front of the house of PW 7 appellant No. 1 had taken money from the deceased purchased liquor and both the appellants along with the deceased had been in the field , (e) the appellants had been to the house of PW 6 at about 1.00 midnight and having informed her that deceased was sleeping with them in the field of Mohali but they did not know as to where he had been thereafter, (f) appellants were not found in their house in the said night, (g) the body of the deceased being found with injuries on his person at 9.30 AM at the field of Mohali, (h) human blood stained shawl and human blood stained muffler being found in the said field, (i) blood stained dagger and knife being found in the said field, (j) clothes of the accused being also found stained with blood.
32. Now taking into consideration the said circumstances duly established by the prosecution evidence and failure of the accused to give any cogent explanation for any of the same has definitely effect to reach to the conclusion as arrived by the trial court. Though it is true that the motive assumes an important in cases of circumstantial evidence still it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the motive established by the prosecution in the instant case i.e. quarrel on the count of beating of son could never have been sufficient motive to the appellants to commit such a heinous act. We are unable to accept said submission as the prosecution is required to establish only the probable motive even in such a cases and the possibility of the said quarrel being sufficient being not ruled out by any of the circumstances adduced on the record and on the contrary there is positive evidence on the record of the appellants having given threat to the deceased after the said quarrel that they would be seeing him later on .
33. With regard to the submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellants of the evidence having not surfaced on the record that on the said day appellant No. 1 was having said shawl or appellant No. 2 said muffler which was found nearby dead body found in the field the same appears to be correct. In view of the same, his further submission that it is difficult to accept prosecution having established with cogent evidence of such articles found at the spot being that of the respective appellants will also deserve due credence and as such the said aspect will be required to be left out of consideration. Needless to add it clearly appears to be hazardous to accept such a claim of identification of articles staked by relevant prosecution witnesses.
34. In the same context even accepting the submission/explanation of the appellants regarding the factual aspect of their blood being not collected by investigating officer still themselves having not claimed of the said clothes/articles were containing their own blood, it will be difficult to accept that the said circumstance will not have any value. The same appears accordingly as hardly any foundation has been led during the cross examination of PW 8 for accepting that he had sprinkled the blood of deceased upon the said articles as claimed by the appellants. In the same context it can be added that presumption of honesty being equally applicable to the evidence of police personnel without any foundation and/or any circumstance supporting conclusion of PW 8 being interested person, the said theory cannot be accepted.
35. Now with regard to the decisions cited by both the parties and without unnecessarily making threadbare dilation about each of them it can be safely said that the potential of circumstance last seen in the company of deceased has been explained by the Hon''ble Apex Court is bound to very from case to case dependent upon the relevant factors and facets involved in the same. Thus considering such a circumstance established against the appellants, the narrow gap in between deceased being seen alive in company of appellant and probable time of death of the deceased prior to finding of his corpse, coupled with the other circumstances affording corroboration to inference arising out of the same it clearly leads to no other conclusion of there existing a very short gap in between the appellants being seen in company of deceased and the time at which the he was found dead and the probable time by which he would have been killed. The narrow time gap considered along with the other incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution, rules out any reasonable probability of culprits being anybody else other than the appellants. Such a conclusion is inevitable as the law pertaining to the circumstantial evidence though requires exclusion of other possibilities the same means the reasonable possibility and not altogether far fetch possibility as observed repeatedly by the Hon''ble Apex Court.
36. As a net result of the aforesaid discussions after reappraisal of the evidence, we do not find any error having been committed by the trial court warranting an interference on our part with the judgment impugned in the appeal. Thus there being no merits in the appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed.
