1 CGHC010115072022 2026:CGHC:35523-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 591 of 2022 Shekh Yarnaj @ Shadab S/o Shekh Irfan, Aged About 18 Years R/o Khaparganj, Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently Residing At Krishna Vihar (Near Sanichari Bazar), Police Station Kotwali, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 12/08/2026 1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.184/2019, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 397 of the IPC BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.13 10:12:12 +0530 2 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, RI for five years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and RI for seven years. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.07.2019, at about 6:45 a.m., information was conveyed to Police Station Koni by informer Dujram Yadav that he had seen an unknown dead body at about 6:00 a.m. He further stated that there were signs of deep injuries on the neck of the deceased. On the basis of the said information, it was reported that the dead body had been thrown near Badi Koni, Ratanpur Road. Thereafter, Crime No. 248/2019 was registered at Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur vide Ex.P- 1. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-2. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-3. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-4. Identification panchnama was prepared vie Ex.P-5. Body was given on Supurdnama vide Ex.P- 6. Statement of Badshah Siddiqui was recorded under Section 164 CrPC vide Ex.P-7. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-8. Two mobiles have been seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-9. Mat and knife was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-10. Two number plates bearing CG 10 AL 5173 and CG 10 AL 5173 were seized at the instance of Akil Khan @ Rana vide Ex.P-11. T-shirt stains with blood and jeans full pant stains with blood were seized on the production of the appellant 3 vide Ex.P-12. Scooty was seized on the production of the appellant vide Ex.P-13. Call details of the mobile was taken. Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was issued vide Ex.P-22. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the CIMS, Bilaspur where Dr.Narayan Gole (PW-13) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-23 and found following injuries:- “Both eye open & fixed diluted pupil, open mouth and tongue inside, rigor mortis present all over body, fixed and brownish colour PML found over dependent part of back of body, 14 stab injury over body in which 02 stab injury in front of body, and rest 12 stab injury found over right side of neck on back of body with blood stained face and cut injury over left lobule of cart.” The doctor has opined that cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest with haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injury found over body which is caused by sharp and pointed object. Manner of dearth was homicidal in nature. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-26. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-44), human blood was found on Article A1 t-shirt, Article A2 full pant, Article A3 sando and Article A4 underwear seized from the deceased, Article B mat, Article D knife and Article E full pant seized from the appellant. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the 4 charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur from where the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur received the case on transfer for trial. 4. In order to prove the guilty of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and claimed innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 5. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this criminal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has convicted the appellant despite the prosecution having failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution witnesses 5 examined during the course of trial were unable to identify the appellant. It is pointed out that one of the witnesses, when the appellant was shown through video conferencing, failed to identify him. The said witness stated that on 30.08.2019, at about 12:00 noon, Amit Mourya had informed him that someone had assaulted his uncle. The witness subsequently came to know that the appellant had allegedly committed the murder, but during cross- examination he could not explain the basis on which he came to know about the alleged involvement of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the witness also stated that he had given his statement at the police station, but could not explain the discrepancy relating to his statement marked as Exhibit D-1. 7. It is further submitted that the other prosecution witnesses also do not establish the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offences. Some of the witnesses merely stated that they had seen the dead body and that the police had obtained their signatures on the FIR, merg intimation and site plan. One of the witnesses stated that after seeing the dead body, he reached the police station after about one hour. Another witness examined on 24.02.2020 stated that he did not know the appellant, while another witness examined on 04.03.2021 was declared hostile and did not make any incriminating statement against the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the evidence led by the prosecution does not establish the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of the IPC. 6 The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant and are equally consistent with his innocence. It is argued that the learned Trial Court has relied upon conjectures and circumstances which fall short of the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. Learned counsel also submits that the testimony of the Investigating Officer, by itself, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant, particularly when the other prosecution witnesses have failed to provide clear and reliable evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged crime. The learned Trial Court, therefore, committed an error in placing undue reliance upon the prosecution evidence without properly examining the material contradictions, omissions and deficiencies therein. 8. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any credible motive for the alleged murder. In the absence of reliable evidence regarding the alleged motive and in view of the deficiencies in the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court ought not to have recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, which it has failed to do. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction 7 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2021 be set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, while opposing the appeal, submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has recorded a well-reasoned finding of guilt against the appellant. The prosecution has successfully established the circumstances forming a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, and there is no material illegality or perversity warranting interference with the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the alleged discrepancies or inability of certain witnesses to identify the appellant do not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when the other evidence and circumstances on record sufficiently establish his involvement. The recovery of the deceased's purse and documents pursuant to the memorandum of the appellant, coupled with the other incriminating circumstances proved during investigation, corroborates the prosecution case. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the testimony of the Investigating Officer cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it is not corroborated by every prosecution witness, and the evidence has to be appreciated as a whole. The prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of the offences 8 under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that absence of proof of a specific motive is not fatal to the prosecution case where the other circumstances independently establish the guilt of the accused. The defence has failed to point out any material contradiction or infirmity sufficient to discredit the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, learned Additional Advocate General prays for dismissal of the appeal and for maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Trial Court. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Anil Kumar Mourya was homicidal in nature ? 13. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. Narayan Gole (PW-12), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Anil Kumar Mourya vide Ex.P-23, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Anil Kumar Mourya 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. 9 14. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant ? 15. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 16. We may also make a reference to a decision of the 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....”. 17. 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; 10 (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.” 18. 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. 19. 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 11 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”. 20. 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 12 must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast 13 between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 23. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 14 conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 24. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 25. Badshah Siddiqui (PW-5) has stated that he recognize the accused Sadab. The incident occurred before the Muharram festival. The accused Sadab came to visit him at home and said he had purchased a car and asked him to go for a drive. He then took him to Agyeya Nagar to show him the car. The car had no number plate and said he had purchased it for 2,10,000 rupees. The car was a Tata car. He then went home after receiving a call from his father. The accused then came to him in the evening and said he wanted vinyl installed in the car. He then accompanied him to Agyeya Nagar to get the car. The accused then sat in the driver's seat, and he sat next to the driver's seat. As he sat down, he noticed a blood stain near the seat. He asked him what it was, and the accused replied that it was goat's blood. He had bought a goat last night. Later, his father called, and the accused came to drop him home on his scooter. The police questioned him about the incident, and he provided the above information. The police also recorded his statement before the Magistrate's Court, which is 15 Ex.P-7, parts A to A of which bear his father's signatures. The witness voluntarily states that the statement was recorded by him. 26. Mohd. Faisal Hussain (PW-11) has stated in para 1 of his deposition that he know the accused shown via video conferencing. On 29.08.2019, he was sitting at his father's grocery store. Around 11:00-11:30 a.m., the accused approached him, saying he did not have an Android phone and wanted to book a car. He then asked for his phone. He downloaded the Ola app from his phone and booked an Ola car. After that, he returned home. 10-15 minutes later, he received a call from Sheikh Yernaz, who said he had booked a car using his mobile phone and that he would have received an OTP. Please show it to him. When he left the house, the accused Sheikh Yernaz was standing outside his door, along with another man walking a short distance away. He gave the OTP to the accused Sheikh Yernaz. After that, Sheikh Yernaz left his house, and he went home to sleep. In para 2 of his deposition, he stated that the next morning, around 11 a.m., the accused, Sheikh Yarnaz came to his house and showed him a key, claiming it was his car key. The police questioned him and recorded his statement. 27. The trial Court in para 27 of its judgment has observed that S.P. Chaturvedi (PW-14) deposed regarding the seizure of two mobile phones from the accused Sheikh Yernaz, namely, a black-coloured Jio mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 911623350937036 and another golden-coloured touchscreen mobile phone bearing IMEI Nos. 864450036933564 and 864450036953572. He stated that 16 photographs of the car and of the deceased lying inside the car, which had been taken after the incident using the camera of the said mobile phone, were found stored therein and, therefore, the mobile phones were seized in the presence of witnesses Ashok Kumar Mourya and Prahlad Kashyap. Thus, the witness corroborated the seizure memo (Ex. P-9). Ashok Kumar Mourya (PW-6) also supported the said proceedings conducted at Police Station Koni. The learned Trial Court further observed that it was evident from the evidence that the two mobile phones seized from the accused on 31.08.2019 did not contain SIM cards; however, the prosecution had established that photographs were found stored in the phones on account of the presence of memory cards. 28. With regard to the aforesaid photographs, the learned Trial Court observed that Prabhakar Tiwari (PW-18), Sub-Inspector, Cyber Cell, deposed that, in connection with the crime registered at Police Station Koni, he had been directed to recover the photographs taken by the accused during the night of 29/30.08.2019 and to submit a report. The witness identified the IMEI numbers of the seized mobile phones as 864450036933564 and 864450036953572 and proved the proceedings relating to Ex. P-32 along with the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, marked as Ex. P-33. He further deposed that, after examination of the seized mobile phones, the photographs were recovered by adopting an advanced logical method. The learned Trial Court noted that the witness had proved the report (Ex. P-40) 17 as well as the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. P-41). 29. The prosecution has been succeeded in proving that deceased Anil Kumar Mourya was murdered. This act of murder was committed by causing injuries to the the deceased. According to the FSL report (Ex.P-44), human blood was found on Article A1 T-shirt, Article A2 fullpant, Article A3 sando and Article A4 underwear seized from the deceased, Article B mat, Article D knife and Article E fullpant seized from the appellant. 30. In this case, circumstantial evidence has been fully proved by the prosecution and its link firmly connect each other and the circumstances are such that they clearly indicate that the incident was committed by the appellants alone. 31. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: - “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” Object 1 32. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 18 33. The Supreme Court in the matter of Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P., AIR 2018 SC 5264 with reference to the word “fact” employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act has held that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. It has been further held that the discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place and it includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. Their Lordships relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in the matter of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 observed as under: - “13. It is a settled legal position that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. It includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra1, in particular, paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The same read thus: “23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (supra) has held thus: (IA p. 77) 1 (2015) 1 SCC 253 19 “… it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. 20 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence. 36. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having carefully examined the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence. Though there is no direct eyewitness to the actual occurrence, the conviction can validly be based upon circumstantial evidence when the circumstances proved on record form a complete chain and are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. 37. In the present case, the evidence of Mohd. Faisal Hussain (PW- 11) establishes the circumstance that the appellant had approached him for booking an OLA vehicle on 29.08.2019 and had obtained the OTP from him after booking the vehicle through 21 his mobile phone. The said circumstance assumes significance when considered along with the subsequent recovery of the vehicle and other incriminating articles and the photographs recovered from the mobile phones of the appellant. 38. The evidence of Badshah Siddiqui (PW-5) further establishes that the appellant had taken him to Agyeya Nagar to show him the car and that, when he sat inside the vehicle, he noticed a bloodstain near the seat. When questioned about the same, the appellant stated that it was goat's blood. The said explanation assumes significance in view of the subsequent discovery of the photographs of the deceased inside the car and the FSL report showing the presence of human blood on the articles seized from the appellant and the knife. 39. The evidence regarding the seizure of two mobile phones from the appellant is also of considerable significance. S.P. Chaturvedi (PW-14) has proved the seizure of the mobile phones vide Ex.P-9 and has stated that photographs of the car and the deceased lying inside the car were found stored in the said mobile phones. The seizure proceedings were also supported by Ashok Kumar Mourya (PW-6). The absence of SIM cards in the seized mobile phones does not render the recovery of the photographs inconsequential, particularly when the prosecution has established that the photographs were stored in the memory cards of the said devices. 22 40. The evidence of Prabhakar Tiwari (PW-18), Sub-Inspector, Cyber Cell, assumes further importance. He has proved the recovery of the photographs from the seized mobile phones and the corresponding report and certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the prosecution has not merely relied upon the alleged seizure of the mobile phones, but has also established through electronic evidence that photographs relating to the vehicle and the deceased were recovered from the devices seized from the appellant. 41. The FSL report (Ex.P-44) also lends material corroboration to the prosecution case. Human blood was detected on the T-shirt, full pant, sando and underwear of the deceased, as well as on the mat, knife and full pant seized from the appellant. The presence of human blood on the knife and the clothing recovered from the appellant, when considered along with the other circumstances proved by the prosecution, constitutes an important incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 42. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that some of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the appellant does not, in our considered opinion, demolish the prosecution case. The present case is not founded upon identification of the appellant by an eyewitness to the occurrence. The prosecution case rests upon a series of circumstances, including the circumstances relating to the booking of the vehicle, the appellant's possession and use of the vehicle, the bloodstain noticed inside the vehicle, 23 the seizure of the mobile phones containing photographs of the deceased inside the car, the recovery of the knife and other articles, and the scientific evidence regarding the presence of human blood. 43. Likewise, the fact that one of the witnesses was declared hostile or that certain witnesses did not furnish incriminating evidence against the appellant cannot, by itself, result in his acquittal. The evidence of each witness has to be appreciated in the light of the entire prosecution case, and the credible part of the evidence which finds corroboration from other circumstances can certainly be relied upon. 44. The contention regarding absence of motive also does not persuade us. Motive assumes significance where the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, but failure to establish a specific motive is not fatal where the other circumstances independently and conclusively establish the involvement of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has established several incriminating circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, point towards the guilt of the appellant. 45. The provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are also attracted to the extent that the information furnished by the appellant led to the discovery and seizure of incriminating articles. As noticed hereinabove, the law is well settled that the fact discovered includes not merely the physical object recovered, but 24 also the place from which it is recovered and the knowledge of the accused regarding its existence. The discovery of the articles pursuant to the information furnished by the appellant, therefore, constitutes a relevant circumstance to the extent permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 46. On a cumulative consideration of the entire evidence, we find that the circumstances proved by the prosecution are not isolated or inconclusive. They form a continuous chain, commencing from the appellant's involvement in arranging the vehicle, followed by his connection with the vehicle, the incriminating condition of the vehicle, the presence of the deceased's photographs in the mobile phones seized from him, the recovery of the knife and other articles, and the scientific evidence regarding the presence of human blood. These circumstances, taken together, point towards the guilt of the appellant and do not admit of any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 47. The learned Trial Court has examined the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded cogent and well-reasoned findings. We do not find any material contradiction, illegality, perversity or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference with the impugned judgment. The principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, as noticed hereinabove, stand duly satisfied in the present case. 25 48. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.184/2019 vide judgment dated 30.09.2021 do not call for any interference. 49. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit are liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 50. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 51. 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. 52. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, 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 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu