1 CGHC010371372024 2026:CGHC:30146-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2001 of 2024 Ritik Sona S/o Dhudhe Sona Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Shivaji Nagar Dabrapara, Raipur P.S. Aamanaka Raipur And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Aamanaka Raipur And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board 16/07/2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 1 Though the matter was listed for consideration on I.A. No. 01/2024, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of the parties the appeal is being finally heard as the appellant is in jail since 13.09.2021. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2024, is disposed of. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.21 16:41:04 +0530 2 2 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.08/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of further R.I. for three months. 3 Brief facts of the case are that, on 12.09.2021 at about 08:45 p.m., at Dabrapara, Veer Shivaji Nagar, Raipur, the appellant allegedly assaulted Rinku @ Khuchkhuch Tandi with a sharp-edged scissor-like weapon and a stone, as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Nirmal Tandi (PW-2), father of the deceased, lodged a Dehati Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalishi, on the basis of which Merg No.53/2021 and FIR Ex.P/19 were registered at Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest (Ex.P/11) over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to AIIMS Hospital, Raipur, where Dr. Pawan Kumar Shukla (PW-7) conducted the post-mortem and submitted his report (Ex.P/15). During the post-mortem examination, multiple ante- mortem injuries, including stab wounds on the chest and back, incised wounds and abrasions on different parts of the body, were noticed. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to a penetrating injury to the heart resulting in hemorrhagic shock and that the death was 3 homicidal in nature. The Investigating Officer prepared the spot map (Ex.P/9), seized plain soil, blood-stained soil and a blood-stained cement stone from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P/3, and recorded the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/1). Pursuant to the said memorandum statement, a blood-stained part of a sharp-edged scissor was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/2. The blood-stained shirt and pant worn by the appellant at the time of the incident were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. The seized articles, including the weapon of offence, clothes of the appellant, clothes of the deceased, blood samples, viscera and other exhibits, were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. As per the FSL report (Ex.P/28), human blood of 'B' group was detected on the appellant's shirt, pant, the seized scissor and the clothes of the deceased, whereas the viscera report (Ex.P/31) revealed that no poisonous substance was detected. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4 The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded during the course of investigation. After completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.08/2022 and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, who, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove. 4 5 The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 6 In order to establish charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, the appellant examined two witnesses, namely, Rambilas (DW-1) and Ramesh Bhoi (DW-2), to substantiate his plea of innocence. 7 After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the conviction rests mainly on the testimony of PW-2 Nirmal Tandi, whose evidence is not wholly reliable and suffers from material infirmities. It is further submitted that though the prosecution has projected PW-2 as an eyewitness, his testimony does not inspire confidence, particularly in view of his admission that his eyesight is weak. It is argued that most of the independent witnesses, namely, PW-6 Sunil Tandi, PW-8 Rajkumar Nishad and PW-10 Neetu Sahni, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence and other articles is also doubtful, as the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that the defence has examined DW-1 Rambilas and DW-2 5 Ramesh Bhoi, whose evidence probabilises the plea that the appellant was elsewhere at the relevant time and had gone for hamali work and was seen purchasing fish at about 10:00 p.m. on the date of the incident. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence and that the forensic evidence, by itself, is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge. 9 Per contra, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is contended that the testimony of PW-2 Nirmal Tandi, the father of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident, is cogent, consistent and inspires confidence. His evidence is duly corroborated by the prompt lodging of the Dehati Merg Intimation, Dehati Nalishi and the First Information Report, as well as by the medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, who has categorically opined that the death was homicidal and was caused by a penetrating injury to the heart inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. Learned State counsel would further submit that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, the weapon of offence, namely, a sharp-edged scissor, was recovered, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report establishes the presence of human blood of 'B' group on the appellant's shirt, pant, the seized scissor and the clothes of the deceased. The appellant has failed to offer any explanation regarding the presence of the blood stains on his clothes and the weapon recovered at his instance. It is further 6 submitted that the evidence of the defence witnesses does not probabilise the plea of alibi, as it does not establish the appellant's whereabouts at the time of occurrence, i.e., about 8:45 p.m. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable ocular, medical and scientific evidence. It is thus submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 10 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 11 The first and foremost question that arises for consideration would be the nature of the death of the deceased as to whether his death was homicidal or not. 12 PW-2 Nirmal Tandi, is the father of the deceased who lodged dehati merg intimation Ex.P/7. He, being the eyewitness to the incident, proved that the appellant assaulted his son Rinku by knife on his chest, abdomen and waist. In the dehati merg intimation itself, the injuries inflicted by the appellant upon the deceased is mentioned. Based on the dehati merg intimation, the dehati nalishi Ex.P/8 was recorded at Amanaka Police Station. 13 The witness to the inquest Ex.P/11 Nirmal Dandi PW-2, Vinod Vishwakarma PW-3 have proved the inquest of the dead body of the deceased, and injuries were noticed on various parts of the body. 14 PW-7, Dr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased. While conducting post-mortem on 13.09.2021 along with Dr. Roop Jyoti Medhi, he noticed the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- 7 “(1) Incised wound of size 1.5cm x 0.3cm x bone deep, present over right side of forehead, obliquely placed. The lower medial end is sharp and placed 2cm right of midline. The upper lateral end is blunt and placed 2.7cm above right eyebrow. Margins sharp and actively bleeding. (2) Red coloured grazed abrasion of size 1.5cm x 1.5cm, placed across lower end of injury number 1. Direction of the abrasion is upwards and medially. (3) Three parallel red coloured scratch abrasion of length 1.5cm, 7.5cm and 1.5cm each, from upwards-down, obliquely placed, present over left side of neck. The smaller scratches are placed 1cm above and below the lateral end of larger middle scratch. The medial end of the middle scratch is placed 5.5cm from midline and lateral end placed 09cm below tip of left mastoid process. (4) Stab wound of size 02cm x 0.7cm x chest cavity deep, vertically placed with slight obliquity to the right, over front of chest just right to midline. The upper lateral end is sharp, placed 1.5cm below sternal angle and 23cm below chin. The lower medial end is blunt, placed 24cm above umbilicus and 130cm above right heel. The right margin is bevelled and left margin is undermined. On dissection, the sternum shows perforating sharp cut of dimension 1.8cm x 0.7cm. On further dissection along the tract of the injury, cuts are seen in the anterior pericardium, anterior wall of right ventricle, right atrio-ventricular septum, posterior wall of right atrium, posterior pericardium and terminating into lower lobe of left lung, with dimensions 1.6cm x 0.7cm, 1.5cm x 0.7cm, 1.4cm x 0.6cm, 01cm x 0.4cm, 01cm x 0.4cm and 0.5cm x 0.3cm x 01cm respectively. The total length of the track was about 15cm. The direction of the track was right to left, upwards and backwards. The Tee-Shirt was having cut mark of size 1.8cm corresponding to the injury described. (5) Incised wound of size 0.6cm x 0.2cm x subcutaneous deep present over the distal third of left middle finger, postero-medial aspect. Both angles sharp, margins sharp and bleeding present. 8 (6) Two abrasion with fallen off scab at places, of size 2cm x 1.5cm and 2cm x 1cm, present over the front of right knee, placed 1cm apart. (7) Red coloured abrasion of size 5.5cm x 1.7cm present over the front of left leg, placed 2cm below left knee. (8) Red abraded contusion of size 12cm x 4cm present over the front of left leg, placed 6cm below injury no (7). (9) Three red coloured abrasions, placed next to each other, of sizes 0.5 cm x 0.2cm, 0.4cm x 0.4cm and 1.5cm x 1cm, present over right side of upper back, just right to midline and 13cm below hairline. (10) Stab wound of size 2.2cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep, obliquely placed, present over right side of lower back. The upper medial end is blunt, placed 6cm to right of midline and 46cm below tip of right shoulder. The lower lateral end is sharp, placed 5cm above right iliac crest and 108cm above heel. The lower margin is bevelled and upper margin is undermined. The total length of the track is about 5cm and there is no penetration into the abdominal cavity. The direction of the track was medial to lateral, upwards, forwards. The Tee-Shirt was having cut mark, at the back, of size 2.3cm corresponding to the injury described.” 15 He opined the injury no. 1 and 5 are caused by hard and sharp object, injury no. 4 and 10 are caused by sharp pointed and single-edged object and injuries no. 2, 6 to 9 are caused by a hard and blunt object and opined that death was due to cardio temponent consequent upon stab injury to the heart. Injury no. 4, along with its associated internal injuries, is caused by a sharp, pointed, single-edged object and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/15. In his cross-examination, the only suggestion given by the defence that if a person fell from the motorcycle while in high speed and dashed with a pointed object then the stab injury found on the body of the deceased can be caused, 9 which he denied and state that only one injury could be caused in such condition. He also denied the suggestion that the stab injury could be caused by iron rod. 16 From the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased clearly suggests that the deceased was died due to the injuries that were homicidal in nature, and we also concur with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 17 So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the prosecution proved its case by examining PW-2, Nirmal Tandi, who is the father of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that the deceased Khuchkhuch Tandi alias Rinku was his younger son. On the date of incident, his son Rinku came out from his house at about 07:00 PM, and after a short distance, he was assaulted by the appellant with a knife. His son fell down on the ground he tried to intervene, but the appellant fled away from there his son died on the spot. He lodged dehati merg intimation Ex.P/7 Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/8, and proved the spot and Ex.P/9 inquest Ex.P/11. In cross-examination, he admitted that he knew the appellant because he is also a resident of the same vicinity. He denied that on the date of the incident, he was under the influence of liquor. He admitted that his eyesight was low. He denied that there was previous quarrel between his son and brother of the appellant. He was confronted with his police statement Ex.D/1 about a previous quarrel between his son and the brother of the deceased, and he denied the same to disclose it before the police. He denied that his since his vision is weak, he could not see the incident as to who assaulted his son. He firmly stated that it is the appellant who committed of his son. From the evidence of this witness, there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve him. He is the father of 10 the deceased, the incident occurred within a very short distance of his house, and his presence is also quite natural on the spot. He tried to intervene in the incident and immediately lodged dehati merg intimation in which he named the appellant as the accused. His evidence remains unshaken in his cross-examination and duly proved that the appellant caused numerous injuries to the body of the deceased with a knife. 18 PW-1, Kamal Soni, was informed by the persons in the vicinity that the appellant caused multiple injuries to the deceased, and then he gave intimation to the police through his mobile phone. He was also the witness to the memorandum Ex.P/, seizure of scissors Ex.P/2, blood- stained and plain soil Ex.P/3, clothes of the appellant Ex.P/4, and arrest of the appellant Ex.P/5. In cross-examination, he admitted that he signed the document at the instance of the police at the police station. 19 PW-3, Vinod Vishwakarma, is the witness to the inquest Ex.P/11, and seizure memos Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3; however, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 20 PW-4, Prafull Tandi, is the brother of the deceased. When he came to know of the incident, he had gone to AIMS Hospital, and then his father informed him that the appellant had murdered his brother. He was neither an eyewitness to the incident nor a witness of any proceeding during the investigation. 21 PW-5, Ashwani Sahu, is the Patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.P/13. 22 PW-6, Sunil Tandi, is also the witness to the inquest but has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. 23 PW-8, Rajkumar Nishad, was the witness of inquest Ex.P/11, but he too has turned hostile and supported the prosecution case. 11 24 PW-10, Neetu Sahani, was the eyewitness to the incident, but she completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. 25 PW-9, S.K. Kar, PW-11, Daitari Ghoi, PW-12, Yakub Memon and PW- 13, Rajesh Singh are the witnesses to the investigation who proved their part of the investigation which they did. They, being the procedural witnesses, duly proved the part of the investigation and supported the prosecution’s case. 26 From the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has duly proved that the appellant caused multiple injuries to the deceased, due to which he died. The weapon of offence, as well as his clothes, i.e., scissors, has been seized from the appellant. 27 The evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded merely on the basis that he is the father of the deceased and an interested witness. 28 Further, merely being closely related to the deceased or a relative of the deceased cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of an eyewitness. In the case of Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “12.There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199, this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23- 24) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the 12 evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., (2010) 1 SCC 722, where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.” 29 The scissors seized from the appellant were sent for its query report to the doctor who gave the query report Ex.P/17, in his detailed query report describing the shape of the weapon of offence opined that “after considering the characteristics of the wounds as noted in PMR No. AIIMS/RPR/2021/203 and from the characteristics of the weapon submitted to me, I am of the opinion that the wound found over the body of the victim is likely to have been caused by such a weapon as has been examined.” The said weapon was referred for FSL examination for confirmation of the presence of blood. 30 The police sent the piece of cement brick (Article -A), blood-stained soil (Article-B), Plain soil (Article-C), shirt of the appellant (Article -D), pant of the appellant (Article-E), scissor seized from the appellant (Article- 13 F), t-shirt of the deceased (Article-G), jeans pant of the deceased (Article-H), underwear of the deceased (Article-I) to the FSL for its chemical examination and as per the FSL report Ex.P/28, ‘B’ group of human blood was found on shirt of the appellant (Article -D), pant of the appellant (Article-E), scissor seized from the appellant (Article-F), t- shirt of the deceased (Article-G), jeans pant of the deceased (Article- H), underwear of the deceased (Article-I) and human blood was found on the cement brick (Article-A), blood has been found on blood stained soil. Since the “B” blood group was found in the clothes of the appellant as well as in the clothes of the deceased and also in the scissors seized from the appellant, he has to explain the circumstances about the presence of the same blood group in his clothes, which matched the blood group of the deceased. When this incriminating circumstance was put up before the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement under the questions no. 118 to 122, he showed his ignorance about the same, but could not explain it. It is necessary to notice the relevant part of his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which is as under:- "प्रश्न-118 इसके अनु स र प्रकेरण में जप्त पत्थरनु में टु केड़ा खूनु आलूदा मिमेंट्टी, स दा मिमेंट्टी, त म्हा र शटु", प#टु, त मेंस जप्त के# ची , में%तके रिरके उर्फ" खू चीखू ची त )डी के+ शटु", ज,स प#टु, अण्डीरवि/यर के1 प लिलूस अधी क्षके के ज्ञा पनु प्र0प 0 26 सविहात र स यविनुके ज 6ची के लिलूय र ज्य वि/लिधी वि/ज्ञा नु प्रय1गश लू र यप र भेज थे जिजसके+ प्र प्तिप्त रस दा प्र0प 0 27 हा= ए/) पर क्षण रिरप1टु" प्र0प 0 28 हा=। क्य त म्हा के छ केहानु हा= ? उत्तर- में लूमें नुहा, प्रश्न-119 र ज्य न्य य लूमियके वि/ज्ञा नु प्रय1गश लू र यप र के पर क्षण प्रवित/दानु प्र.प . -25 के अनु स र में%तके रिरके त )डी के ग जप स प्रदाश"-ए, रक्त प्रदाश"- बी 1, रक्त प्रदाश"- बी 2 पर में नु/ रक्त प य गय। क्य त म्हा के छ केहानु हा= ? 14 उत्तर- में लूमें नुहा, प्रश्न-120 र ज्य न्य य लूमियके वि/ज्ञा नु प्रय1गश लू र यप र के पर क्षण प्रवित/दानु प्र.प . -28 के अनु स र घटुनु स्थलू स जप्त स मेंन्टु के टु केड़ा प्रदाश"-ए, मिमेंट्टी प्रदाश"-बी , त म्हा र शटु" प्रदाश"-डी , प#टु प्रदाश"-ई, के# ची प्रदाश"-एर्फ, में%तके के टु शटु" प्रदाश"-ज , ज,स प#टु प्रदाश"-एची, अ)डीरवि/यर प्रदाश"- आई में रक्त प य गय । क्य त म्हा के छ केहानु हा= ? उत्तर- में लूमें नुहा, प्रश्न-121 र ज्य न्य य लूमियके वि/ज्ञा नु प्रय1गश लू र यप र के पर क्षण प्रवित/दानु प्र.प . -28 के अनु स र घटुनु स्थलू स जप्त स मेंन्टु के टु केड़ा प्रदाश"-ए, त म्हा र शटु" प्रदाश"-डी , प#टु प्रदाश"- ई, के# ची प्रदाश"-एर्फ, में%तके के टु शटु" प्रदाश"-ज , ज,स प#टु प्रदाश"-एची, अ)डीरवि/यर प्रदाश"- आई में में नु/ रक्त प य गय । क्य त म्हा के छ केहानु हा= ? उत्तर- में लूमें नुहा, प्रश्न-122 र ज्य न्य य लूमियके वि/ज्ञा नु प्रय1गश लू र यप र के पर क्षण प्रवित/दानु प्र.प . -28 के अनु स र त म्हा र शटु" प्रदाश"- डी , प#टु प्रदाश"-ई, के# ची प्रदाश"-एर्फ, में%तके के टु शटु" प्रदाश"- ज , ज,स प#टु प्रदाश"-एची, अ)डीरवि/यर प्रदाश"- आई में 'बी ' समेंहा (ग्रु प) के रक्त प य गय । क्य त म्हा के छ केहानु हा= ? उत्तर- में लूमें नुहा," 31 The non-explanation of incriminating circumstances by the accused in 313 Cr.P.C. statement is an additional link against him, pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 32 Nevertheless, once the prosecution has independently established the forensic evidence and other incriminating circumstances, the appellant's failure to furnish any explanation regarding facts, especially within his knowledge, assumes significance and constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The law is well settled that a false or evasive explanation under Section 313 CrPC may be taken into consideration as an additional circumstance reinforcing the prosecution case, though it cannot be made the sole 15 basis of conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra” 2006 (10) SCC 681, has held that:- “21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness a account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendrans b (SCC para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (SCC para 39: AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh 10 (SCC para 27); Ganesh Lal v State of Rajasthan (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P.12 (SCC para 4).]” 33 Further in the case of “Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra” 2021 (5) SCC 626, it has been held that:- “25. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. By now it is well-settled principle of law, that false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984)” 4 SCC 116: 1984 SCC (Cri) 487.” 34 The appellant has also examined two defence witnesses in the case who stated about his absence on the place of the incident. 35 DW-1, Rambilas, has stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, the appellant Ritik Sona was with him up to 10:00 PM, and till that time they were in their work of Coolie. In cross-examination, he 16 stated that at about 07:00 PM on the date of the incident, they had gone to Mahoba Bajar to vacate a house there. On the same morning, he had gone there, came back after some time and again went at about 07:00 PM. He admitted that when the police arrested the appellant, he had not gone to the police to inform them that the appellant had been with him throughout the day and he had not committed any offence. He admitted that he and the appellant were working together and therefore he has a very good relationship with him. 36 DW-2 Ramesh Hoi is the fish seller who stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, at about 10-10:30 PM, the appellant and Rambilas came to his shop and after purchasing fish, they went back. After 10-15 minutes, Tebu and Yaam informed him about the incident, and then he informed the father of the deceased, who was in a drunken condition at that time. In cross-examination, he admitted that within the municipal area, the shops are normally closed up to 10:00 PM, and his shop also comes under the municipal area. He did not see them as to where they came from. He himself has not informed the police that the appellant had come to his shop at about 10:00 to purchase fish he too has admitted that he has a good relation with the appellant and his family. 37 These two witnesses tried to build the defence that the appellant was with DW-1 Rambilas until 10:00-10:30 at night, and by that time, the incident had already occurred. However, no suggestions were given to PW-2, Nirmal Tandi, that the appellant was not there on the spot, but he was at his work with DW-1, Rambilas. Further, these two witnesses have never informed the police that the appellant has not committed the offence despite the fact that they have a very good relationship with 17 the appellant and his family members. The defence could not produce any witness with respect to his presence at his workplace, and these two defence witnesses are related to the presence of the appellant in the fish shop of DW-2, at 10:00 -10:30 PM. Both these places, i.e., the place of incident and the fish shop of DW-2, are situated nearby, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has succeeded in imputing the probability of his defence that he was not present on the spot. Therefore, the defence witnesses cannot be said to be reliable on this point. 38 Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, and the consideration of the learned trial Court, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of the deceased Rinku alias Khuchkhuch Tandi. 39 Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed. 40 The appellant is reported to be in jail since 13.09.2021, he shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 41 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 18 42 The records of the case along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok