JUDGMENT : Zafeer Ahmad, J. 1. Heard, Sri Adarsh Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel A.G.A for the State. Perused the records. 2. The aforesaid jail appeal arises out of order and judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2005 (State v. Mahadev Raidas) arising out of case crime no. 807 of 2004, Police Station Gola, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, an additional six months simple imprisonment. It has further been directed that, out of the total fine amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation. Prosecution Story in Nutshell: 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.10.2004 complainant Hemnath s/o Maikulal r/o Purnbhugrant, Police Station- Gola, District- Kheri submitted a written report in Police Station- Gola stating therein that his brother, Kandhai was asleep, when at around 9:00 PM, Mahadev s/o Tauleram, a resident of the same village, came to his house and called Kandhai outside and took him along. It was further alleged that Kandhai’s wife, Lajja Devi, objected to his going; however, the accused persuaded him on the pretext of going for fishing and took him away. It was further stated that when Kandhai did not return home even by 11:00 P.M., Lajja Devi sent her brother-in-law, Bhagwan Deen, in search of him. Despite extensive search, Kandhai could not be traced and he returned home exhausted at about 3:00 A.M. Thereafter, Lajja Devi disclosed that the accused Mahadev had earlier expressed his desire to keep her, which she had refused and had informed her husband also about the same. It was further alleged that upon refusal, the accused had threatened that he would eliminate her husband. On the following morning, one Suresh s/o Putan, of his village, informed that on the previous night at about 9:00 P.M., Mahadev had brought Kandhai and that the accused had made him consume liquor. It was further alleged that upon refusal, the accused had threatened that he would eliminate her husband. On the following morning, one Suresh s/o Putan, of his village, informed that on the previous night at about 9:00 P.M., Mahadev had brought Kandhai and that the accused had made him consume liquor. Thereafter, the complainant and his family members searched the fields and nearby forest area and in the Gadiyana forest, the dead body of Kandhai was found lying with his throat slit. It was alleged that the accused Mahadev had committed the murder of Kandhai and body is lying on the spot. 4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka-1), an FIR was registered (Ext. Ka-15) under Section 302 IPC against the Mahadev (accused-appellant). The investigation started on 29.10.2004 and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely PW-1 Hemnath, PW-2 Lajja Devi, PW-3 Suresh, PW-4 Dr. M. K. Aggarwal, PW-5 Narayan Lal and PW-6 SSI Ashutosh Mishra. However, the Investigating Officer of the case, SHO T.B. Singh could not be examined as he had retired from service and was critically ill and unable to walk. Similarly, SSI Ram Sagar had also retired from service and Head Moharrir Chandrika Prasad had passed away. The documents prepared by the aforesaid officials during the course of investigation have been duly proved by PW-6. 6. Following documents were produced and proved before the trial court: Particulars Exhibit Number Written Report Ext. Ka-1 Post-mortem report Ext. Ka-2 Panchayatnama Ext. Ka-3 Recovery Memo of axe Ext. Ka-4 Sample Seal Ext. Ka-5 Police Form-13 Ext. Ka-6 Sketch of Dead Body Ext. Ka-7 Police Form-33 Ext. Ka-8 Letter to RI Ext. Ka-9 Letter CMO Ext. Ka-10 Recovery Memo of one pair of plastic slippers and blood stained gamcha ¼xeNk½ Ext. Ka-11 Site plan of the place of the occurrence Ext. Ka-12 Site Plan of the place from where recovery of the axe is made Ext. Ka-13 Charge-Sheet Ext. Ka-14 FIR Ext. Ka-15 Recovery Memo of plain and blood-stained earth Ext. Ka-16 Carbon Copy of GD Entry No. 36 Ext. Ka-11 Site plan of the place of the occurrence Ext. Ka-12 Site Plan of the place from where recovery of the axe is made Ext. Ka-13 Charge-Sheet Ext. Ka-14 FIR Ext. Ka-15 Recovery Memo of plain and blood-stained earth Ext. Ka-16 Carbon Copy of GD Entry No. 36 Ext. Ka-17 Forensic Report Ext. Ka-18 Axe Material Ext.-1 7. Furthermore, the appellant, in his statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.), denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to party- bandi (factionalism) prevailing in the village. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellants. 8. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, an additional six months simple imprisonment. Submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant: 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been contended that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 28/29.10.2004, the dead body of the deceased was found at about 8:00 A.M. on 29.10.2004, yet the FIR was registered only at about 3:20 P.M. on the same day, which creates serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. It has further been argued that there are no eyewitnesses to the actual occurrence and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, with only Lajja Devi having allegedly seen the deceased leaving the house with the appellant. Learned counsel also pointed out alleged contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.It was also argued that even according to the testimony of PW-2 Lajja Devi, the Investigating Officer did not put any specific question to her regarding the occurrence or the murder, which itself reflects a serious lapse in the investigation and further weakens the prosecution case. It was further contended that the bloodstains allegedly found on the weapon of offence were not conclusively examined to establish that they belonged to the deceased, therefore, the chain of circumstances is incomplete, entitling the appellant to benefit of doubt. It was further contended that the bloodstains allegedly found on the weapon of offence were not conclusively examined to establish that they belonged to the deceased, therefore, the chain of circumstances is incomplete, entitling the appellant to benefit of doubt. Submissions made by learned A.G.A: 10.Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction. It has been submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant through cogent and reliable evidence. The alleged delay in lodging the FIR has been duly explained and does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. It is further contended that though there is no direct eyewitness to the actual assault, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and inspires confidence, and minor discrepancies, if any, are natural and do not go to the root of the matter. It is thus submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is well-founded and calls for no interference by this Court. Oral Testimonies :- In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. PW-1, Hemnath , who is the complainant and brother of the deceased ,Kandhai, was examined. In his examination-in-chief, he narrated the sequence of the incident and also stated about the threats allegedly given by the appellant-accused, Mahadev, as disclosed to him by the wife of the deceased, Lajja Devi. He further deposed that after the discovery of the dead body of his brother, Kandhai, he went to the concerned police station and submitted a written report, which was scribed by one namely Ramakant. Thus, in his examination-in-chief, he fully supported the prosecution version. 12. In cross-examination , he further clarified the timeline of the incident and categorically stated that he had heard the accused-appellant, Mahadev, calling his brother for fishing. He refuted the suggestions put by the defence regarding false implication, illicit relations and other such allegations, and also proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1. He further stated that the relations between Kandhai and Mahadev were not strained. He refuted the suggestions put by the defence regarding false implication, illicit relations and other such allegations, and also proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1. He further stated that the relations between Kandhai and Mahadev were not strained. He also deposed that when Bhagwandeen, his brother, returned after extensive search at around 3:00 A.M., thereafter Lajja Devi disclosed that Mahadev wanted her to live with him and also had a bad intention towards her ¼^^eq> ij cqjh utj j[krk Fkk^^½ . He further deposed that the police personnel reached the place of occurrence in the afternoon. Despite exhaustive cross-examination, which runs to about nine pages, nothing material could be elicited which may create doubt in the prosecution version. On a careful perusal of the testimony of this witness, it transpires that he establishes the motive and also, to a certain extent, can be regarded as a witness to the circumstance of last seen. 13. PW-2 Lajja Devi, wife of the deceased, deposed that on the night of 28.10.2004 the appellant Mahadev came to her house at about 9:00 P.M. and allured her husband Kandhai on the pretext of going for fishing. She further deposed that after a considerable lapse of time, when her husband did not return, she asked Bhagwandeen to search for him. Bhagwandeen went in search of Kandhai at about 11:00 P.M. and returned exhausted and unsuccessful at about 3:00 A.M., without any information regarding his whereabouts. She further disclosed that the appellant had earlier expressed improper intentions towards her and had threatened that if she refused to live with him, he would eliminate her husband. She further deposed that on the following morning the dead body of Kandhai was discovered in the jungle. She also stated that Daroga ji(Investigating Officer) had inquired from her about the incident. 14. In cross-examination , she stated that on the night of the incident she had prepared food at about 8:00 P.M. and it took about half an hour for the family to finish the meal. She further deposed, at page 4 of her deposition, that Mahadev had come to her door about an hour after they had finished dinner. At page 9 of her deposition, she reiterated that the Investigating Officer had inquired from her about the murder. She further deposed, at page 4 of her deposition, that Mahadev had come to her door about an hour after they had finished dinner. At page 9 of her deposition, she reiterated that the Investigating Officer had inquired from her about the murder. She denied the suggestion put by the defence that she had not seen her husband going away with Mahadev or that she was deposing falsely. Upon careful perusal of her cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited which may be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 15. PW-3 Suresh, is the witness who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused-appellant. According to this witness, on the date of occurrence at about 9:00 P.M., the deceased Kandhai and the appellant Mahadev came to his house. He deposed that Mahadev made Kandhai consume liquor and thereafter asked him to accompany him for fishing, whereupon both of them left together. He further deposed that on the following morning, when the dead body of Kandhai was discovered in the Ambara jungle, he and the family members of the deceased became convinced that Mahadev had murdered Kandhai. He also deposed that the police had inquired from him regarding the occurrence. 16. In cross-examination , he clarified that Kandhai was his cousin brother-in-law and used to visit his house occasionally. He stated that on the day of occurrence Kandhai and Mahadev had come to his house at about 9:00 P.M., consumed liquor there and thereafter left together. He further deposed that on the next morning he came to know that Kandhai had been murdered and later saw the dead body in Gola. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely under the influence of Kandhai’s family members or that he had not seen Kandhai leaving with Mahadev. Upon careful consideration of his testimony, nothing substantial has surfaced in his cross-examination, which could negate the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the offence. 17. PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal , Senior Consultant, District Jail Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, deposed that on 30.04.2004 he was posted at T.B. Clinic, Kheri and at about 3:00 P.M. conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Kandhai, whose body was brought by Constable Bhikhari Lal Verma of Police Station Gola. According to him, the deceased was about 32 years of age and had died approximately one and a half days prior to the post-mortem. According to him, the deceased was about 32 years of age and had died approximately one and a half days prior to the post-mortem. On external examination, the body was of average build with bloodstains throughout and rigor mortis had disappeared from the upper limbs and was spreading to the lower limbs. The following ante-mortem injuries were found: - Injury No. 1: Incised wound measuring 7 cm X 2 cm X spinal cord deep, on the back of the neck with all underlying muscle, vessels and neck vertebra broken. - Injury No. 2: Incised wound measuring 6 cm X 2 cm X spinal cord deep on the front of the neck, underlying muscle, trachea, and oesophagus were cut. - Injury No. 3: Incised wound measuring 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the neck, below injury no. 1. - Injury No. 4: Incised wound measuring 7 cm X 1 cm X trachea deep on the front of the neck, 2cm below injury no. 3. - Injury No. 5: Abraded contusion measuring 2 cm X 1 cm on the chin. 18. On internal examination, the heart was normal and empty; the stomach contained about 200 grams of paste-like food, while the liver, spleen and kidneys were normal. In his opinion, death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries and had likely taken place between the night of 28.10.2004 and the afternoon of 29.10.2004. He further stated that injury nos.1 and 4 could have been caused by a sharp- edged weapon such as an axe and injury no.5 could also result from a fall. 19. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not specified in the post-mortem report the exact weapon causing the injuries. He further stated that the spine of the deceased was broken, which could be caused by a heavy weapon and possibly even by a slingshot. He further stated that injury nos.1 and 2 were caused in a slanting direction and could occur if a standing person was struck from the front with an axe. He further stated that all injuries were of similar nature, though he could not say that all were caused from the front and that such injuries could be caused by different weapons. He further stated that all injuries were of similar nature, though he could not say that all were caused from the front and that such injuries could be caused by different weapons. He further stated that there was no injury on the back of the deceased, that injury no.5 could occur if the chin was struck by a heavy weapon or due to a fall, and that alcohol was not found in the stomach. He further stated that the deceased might have consumed food 2–3 hours prior to death and that the time of death could vary by about six hours either way. From a careful perusal of the medical evidence, it transpires that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The medical evidence thus broadly corroborates the prosecution version regarding the nature of assault and the time of death. Nothing substantial has emerged in the cross-examination of the doctor, which may render the prosecution case improbable or inconsistent with the medical findings. 20. PW-5 Narayan Lal deposed that upon receiving information he went to the place of occurrence and was present when the police reached there.He stated that the police sealed and stamped the dead body of Kandhai in his presence and completed the necessary formalities, thus proving Ext. Ka-3. He further deposed that when he returned to the village he saw Mahadev there and upon being questioned about the murder, Mahadev attempted to run away but was apprehended by villagers including Asharfi and Rajendra. He further stated that Mahadev admitted the murder and offered to recover the weapon. According to him, Mahadev led them to bushes in the jungle and recovered a kulhadi (axe) having blood on its blade. The axe was thereafter taken to the police station and was sealed in his presence, thus proving Ext. Ka-4, though it was not read over to him before obtaining his signatures. When a sealed case was opened before the Court, he identified the axe as the same weapon recovered at the instance of Mahadev, though he stated that at the time of recovery it had a long handle. 21. In cross-examination , he stated that Kandhai was the son of his uncle and their houses were separate. When a sealed case was opened before the Court, he identified the axe as the same weapon recovered at the instance of Mahadev, though he stated that at the time of recovery it had a long handle. 21. In cross-examination , he stated that Kandhai was the son of his uncle and their houses were separate. He further stated that he did not know at what time Kandhai had left his house. He deposed that on the next day at about 1:00 P.M., while working at a saw mill, he received information that Kandhai had been murdered and his dead body was found in the jungle. When he reached the village at about 2:00 P.M., the police were present and the dead body was in sealed condition in a jeep. He further stated that villagers including Kandhai’s family members were present and Mahadev had been tied by the police. He further stated that no axe was found near the jeep and after staying there for about half an hour he returned to work. He further deposed that he was called to the police station at about 4:00–5:00 P.M., where the dead body was lying and Mahadev was in the lock-up. He stated that the Investigating Officer only obtained his signatures on a document, which was not read over to him and thereafter no further inquiry was made from him. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed anything or that no recovery had been made. 22. PW-6 Ashutosh Mishra, SSI, Police Station Karaundi Kalan, District Sultanpur, deposed that on 29.10.2004 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Gola, District Kheri. He stated that on the same day Crime No. 807 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC was registered at the police station in the presence of SHO T.B. Singh and he accompanied the SHO to the place of occurrence. Through his testimony he proved the panchayatnama (Ext. Ka-3), sample seal (Ext. Ka-5), police form-13 (Ext. Ka-6), sketch of the dead body (Ext. Ka-7), police form 33 (Ext. Ka-8), letter to RI (Ext. Ka-9) and letter to CMO (Ext. Ka-10). He further proved the recovery memo of one pair of plastic slippers and a blood-stained gamcha prepared by SSI Ram Sagar Rakesh, who had since retired, also bearing the signatures of SHO T.B. Singh, as Ext. Ka-11. Ka-7), police form 33 (Ext. Ka-8), letter to RI (Ext. Ka-9) and letter to CMO (Ext. Ka-10). He further proved the recovery memo of one pair of plastic slippers and a blood-stained gamcha prepared by SSI Ram Sagar Rakesh, who had since retired, also bearing the signatures of SHO T.B. Singh, as Ext. Ka-11. Since SHO T.B. Singh had also retired and was critically ill and unable to walk, the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-12), site plan of recovery of axe (Ext. Ka-13) and the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) prepared by him were also proved through this witness. He further proved the check FIR prepared by HM Chandrika Prasad, who had since expired, as Ext. Ka-15, the recovery memo of plain and blood-stained earth prepared by SSI Ram Sagar Rakesh and signed by SHO T.B. Singh as Ext. Ka-16, and the GD entry prepared by HM Chandrika Prasad as Ext. Ka-17. 23. In cross-examination , he denied the suggestion that he did not identify the signature of the aforesaid officials. He further denied the suggestion that, being a police officer, he was deposing falsely in order to settle the case. Upon careful perusal of the testimony of this witness, it transpires that he is a formal witness, who has proved various documents prepared during the course of investigation, including the inquest report, site plans, recovery memos and the check FIR. Nothing material has surfaced in his cross- examination which may cast doubt on the formal aspects of the prosecution case. Court Analysis: Circumstantial Evidences: 24. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been fairly settled by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments and is no longer res integra. The settled legal position is that a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence provided that the chain of circumstances is complete, unerring and excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. The foundational principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence were laid down by Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the well-known panchsheel principles were formulated, namely: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The foundational principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence were laid down by Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the well-known panchsheel principles were formulated, namely: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved”. It is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 25. These principles have been consistently reaffirmed in several later decisions. In Chetan v. State of Karnataka , (2025) 9 SCC 31 , the Supreme Court upheld a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, including the application of the last seen theory. The last seen theory comes into play, where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive together and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes highly improbable. 26. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, upon a careful perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the following incriminating circumstances emerge against the accused-appellant: 1. The accused Mahadev had expressed his desire to keep PW-2 Lajja Devi, the wife of the deceased Kandhai, with him. 2. When such proposal was rejected by PW-2, the accused threatened her by stating that he would eliminate her husband. 3. The accused Mahadev had expressed his desire to keep PW-2 Lajja Devi, the wife of the deceased Kandhai, with him. 2. When such proposal was rejected by PW-2, the accused threatened her by stating that he would eliminate her husband. 3. On the night of the occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased at about 9:00 P.M. and called him outside on the pretext of going for fishing. 4. At that time PW-2 Lajja Devi was present there and PW-1 Hemnath heard the accused calling the deceased. 5. Thereafter the accused and the deceased left together, but the deceased did not return home even after considerable time. PW-2 then asked Bhagwandeen, the brother of the deceased, to search for him at about 11:00 P.M. 6. Bhagwandeen returned exhausted and unsuccessful at about 3:00 A.M. 7. Thereafter PW-2 Lajja Devi disclosed to PW-1 Hemnath that the accused had earlier expressed improper intentions towards her and had threatened to eliminate her husband when she refused his proposal. 8. PW-3 Suresh deposed that on 28.10.2004 at about 9:00 P.M., the deceased Kandhai and the accused Mahadev came to his house and consumed liquor, whereafter Mahadev asked Kandhai to accompany him for fishing and both of them left together. 9. PW-5 Narayan Lal deposed that when he questioned Mahadev regarding the murder of Kandhai, the accused attempted to flee but was apprehended with the help of other villagers. According to this witness, the accused admitted that he had murdered Kandhai and also led the villagers to the recovery of the blood-stained axe used in the commission of the offence. The accused along with the recovered weapon was thereafter taken to the police station. 10.PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Kandhai and opined that the death could have occurred between the night of 28.10.2004 and the afternoon of 29.10.2004. The nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased was consistent with injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon such as an axe, thereby lending medical corroboration to the prosecution case. 11. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court put all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused-appellant to him. However, he did not offer any plausible explanation and merely stated that he had been falsely implicated due to village factionalism (party bandi). 11. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court put all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused-appellant to him. However, he did not offer any plausible explanation and merely stated that he had been falsely implicated due to village factionalism (party bandi). It is also noteworthy that the accused-appellant did not lead any evidence in defence, either oral or documentary. 27. The witnesses produced by the prosecution have deposed regarding the complicity of the accused in a consistent and cogent manner. The testimonies of the witnesses of fact substantially corroborate each other in material particulars. PW-1 Hemnath and PW-2 Lajja Devi have clearly deposed regarding the motive and the threats extended by the accused. PW-3 Suresh has supported the circumstance of last seen by stating that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused shortly before the occurrence. The evidence of PW-5 Narayan Lal regarding the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of the weapon of assault further strengthens the prosecution case. The medical evidence of PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal lends corroboration to the prosecution version regarding the nature of injuries and the time of death. Thus, the chain of circumstances emerging from the evidence on record forms a complete and coherent chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 28. It is well settled principle that when the prosecution successfully establishes a chain of circumstances, which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence, conviction can safely be recorded on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the motive, the last seen circumstance, the extra-judicial confession, the recovery of the weapon of offence and the opinion of the doctor that the ante-mortem injuries could have been caused by an axe, which together form a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that it was the accused-appellant who committed the murder of Kandhai. 29. Another important circumstance which deserves consideration is the conduct of the accused-appellant immediately after the occurrence. The evidence of PW-5 Narayan Lal indicates that when the accused was questioned regarding the murder of Kandhai, he attempted to flee from the spot and was apprehended with the assistance of other villagers. 29. Another important circumstance which deserves consideration is the conduct of the accused-appellant immediately after the occurrence. The evidence of PW-5 Narayan Lal indicates that when the accused was questioned regarding the murder of Kandhai, he attempted to flee from the spot and was apprehended with the assistance of other villagers. Such conduct of the accused assumes significance in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence. It is a well-recognised principle that conduct often speaks louder than words and the behaviour of the accused before, during and after the occurrence may provide a valuable link in the chain of circumstances. The attempt of the accused to run away, when confronted with questions regarding the incident clearly reflects a consciousness of guilt and constitutes an incriminating circumstance against him. 30. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts and therefore do not assist the appellant. On the contrary, the principles laid down therein reiterate the settled law relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence and support the prosecution case. Alleged Minor Contradictions/ Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus 31. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to discredit the prosecution witnesses ,particularly in the statements of PW-1 Hemnath, PW-2 Lajja Devi and PW-3 Suresh, by pointing out inconsistencies in their testimonies, regarding time of death, delay in lodging FIR, who went to search for deceased during night, etc. However, it is well settled that minor contradictions or omissions, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case cannot be made a ground to discard the otherwise reliable testimony of a witness. In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 , the Supreme Court observed in para 42: “42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person…..” 32. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person…..” 32. The same principle has been reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh , (2011) 4 SCC 786 and Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh , (2022) 8 SCC 253 , wherein the Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies or omissions cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of witnesses, if the evidence on material aspects is otherwise credible. 33. It is equally settled that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and is merely a rule of caution. In Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1957 SCC OnLine SC 42 , the Supreme Court observed in para 9: “9. … This maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded… the maxim is in itself worthless… it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do.” 34. Similarly, in Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble (2003) 7 SCC 749 , it was observed that the duty of the Court is to separate the grain from the chaff and that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot be mechanically applied. 35. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the alleged discrepancies pointed out by the defence are of a trivial nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-1 Hemnath, PW-2 Lajja Devi and PW-3 Suresh consistently establishes that the accused Mahadev had taken the deceased Kandhai from his house on the pretext of fishing and that the deceased was last seen alive, by PW-3 Suresh, in the company of the accused. The evidence of PW-1 Hemnath, PW-2 Lajja Devi and PW-3 Suresh consistently establishes that the accused Mahadev had taken the deceased Kandhai from his house on the pretext of fishing and that the deceased was last seen alive, by PW-3 Suresh, in the company of the accused. Minor variations with respect to the exact sequence of events during the night, the precise time when the search for the deceased was initiated, or the manner in which the information was conveyed among family members are natural discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter. 36. It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the number of witnesses is not material; what is important is the quality and reliability of the evidence. Evidence cannot be appreciated by picking out isolated portions of a witness’s deposition; rather, the testimony must be read and evaluated as a whole. This approach assumes greater significance when the evidence of rustic or village witnesses is being analysed. In the present case, PW-2 Lajja Devi is a rustic village woman whose husband had been brutally murdered. A witness placed in such traumatic circumstances is likely to be under severe emotional distress and shock. In such a situation, minor inconsistencies in her answers during cross-examination cannot be treated as contradictions of such magnitude as to discredit her testimony altogether. 37. It must also be borne in mind that no prosecution case is expected to be absolutely flawless or free from every discrepancy. Human testimony is bound to contain certain variations due to lapse of memory, differences in perception and the natural tendency of witnesses to narrate events in their own manner. Therefore, unless such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case and affect the substratum of the evidence, they must be ignored. 38. In the present case, the minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence neither affect the substratum of the prosecution’s case nor create any reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of the accused. On the contrary, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when appreciated in its entirety, inspires confidence and establishes the circumstances forming the chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Burden of Proof vis-à-vis Last Seen Theory 39. In the present case, one of the important circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the accused. Burden of Proof vis-à-vis Last Seen Theory 39. In the present case, one of the important circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the accused. The law relating to the “last seen theory” is well settled. In Nizam v. State of Rajasthan , (2016) 1 SCC 550 , the Supreme Court observed in para 14: “ 14. The courts below convicted the appellants on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellants on 23-1-2001. Undoubtedly, the ‘last seen theory’ is an important link in the chain of circumstances that would point towards the guilt of the accused with some certainty. The ‘last seen theory’ holds the courts to shift the burden of proof to the accused and the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to the cause of death of the deceased. It is well settled by this Court that it is not prudent to base the conviction solely on ‘last seen theory’. ‘Last seen theory’ should be applied taking into consideration the case of the prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen.” 40. The above principle operates in conjunction with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram , (2006) 12 SCC 254 , the Supreme Court explained the scope of Section 106 in the following words in para 23: “23. … The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution…” 41. It is thus clear that Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, where certain facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the law expects him to offer a reasonable explanation regarding those facts. Failure to do so may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution. 42. In the present case, the evidence of PW-2 Lajja Devi and PW-3 Suresh clearly establishes that the deceased Kandhai was last seen alive in the company of the accused Mahadev shortly before the occurrence. The accused had taken the deceased from his house on the pretext of going for fishing, and thereafter the deceased never returned home. On the following morning, the dead body of the deceased was discovered in the Ambara jungle. 43. In such circumstances, it was for the accused, who was last seen in the company of the deceased, to explain as to how and under what circumstances he parted company with the deceased. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused merely took the plea that he had been falsely implicated due to village factionalism (party bandi) and did not offer any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased. 44. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused merely took the plea that he had been falsely implicated due to village factionalism (party bandi) and did not offer any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased. 44. The failure of the accused to offer any reasonable explanation regarding facts which were especially within his knowledge attracts the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act and provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution. Thus, the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the accused, coupled with the absence of any plausible explanation from the accused, further strengthens the prosecution case. Reasonable Doubt: 45. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt on account of the case resting on circumstantial evidence, absence of direct eyewitnesses, and certain deficiencies in investigation. It is settled law that where a reasonable doubt arises, the same must ensure that it benefits the accused. However, such doubt must be real, substantial and arise from the evidence on record, and not from conjectures or isolated infirmities. 46. In the present case, the absence of an eyewitness is not fatal, as the prosecution has built its case on circumstantial evidence, which has been found to be cogent and consistent. The evidence of PW-2 Lajja Devi and PW-3 Suresh clearly establishes that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused shortly before the occurrence. The motive attributed to the accused, as deposed by PW-2, also stands proved. These material circumstances have remained intact despite cross-examination. 47. The alleged lapses in investigation, such as non-examination of certain witnesses or procedural deficiencies, also do not materially affect the prosecution case, inasmuch as the core circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused stand proved by reliable evidence. It is well settled that defective investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal, when the substantive evidence on record is trustworthy. 48. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra , (1973) 2 SCC 793 wherein it was held in para 6: “6. It is well settled that defective investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal, when the substantive evidence on record is trustworthy. 48. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra , (1973) 2 SCC 793 wherein it was held in para 6: “6. Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned Author [ Glanville Williams in ‘Proof of Guilt’.] has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted “persons” and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that “a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent .…” In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that “a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent .…” In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents. We have adopted these cautions in analysing the evidence and appraising the soundness of the contrary conclusions reached by the courts below.” 49. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the doubts sought to be created by the defence are neither reasonable nor sufficient to dislodge the consistent chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution. The evidence on record, when appreciated in its entirety, does not leave any reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused. 50. Thus, the benefit of doubt, which must be founded on sound reasoning and not on mere conjectures or speculative possibilities, cannot be extended to the accused-appellant. Time of Death: 51. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to raise doubt regarding the time of death of the deceased by referring to the contents of the stomach noted in the post-mortem report. It has been argued that since the doctor found semi-digested food in the stomach, the prosecution version regarding the time of occurrence becomes doubtful. However, such submission does not merit acceptance. It is well settled that the condition of stomach contents is not a precise or infallible guide for determining the exact time of death and must be appreciated in conjunction with other surrounding circumstances. 52. Learned A.G.A., in this regard, has relied upon the decision of this Court in Vijay Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2019 SCC Online All 4202, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held in para 125: “125. The state of the contents of the stomach found at the time of medical examination is not a safe guide for determining the time of the occurrence because that would be a matter of speculation, in the absence of reliable evidence on the question as to when the deceased had his last meal and what that meal consisted of. The state of the contents of the stomach found at the time of medical examination is not a safe guide for determining the time of the occurrence because that would be a matter of speculation, in the absence of reliable evidence on the question as to when the deceased had his last meal and what that meal consisted of. The presence of faecal matter in the intestines is not conclusive, as the deceased might be suffering from constipation. Where there is positive direct evidence about the time of occurrence, it is not open to the court to speculate about the time of occurrence by the presence of faecal matter in the intestines. The question of time of death of the victim should not be decided only by taking into consideration the state of food in the stomach. That may be a factor which should be considered along with other evidence, but that fact alone cannot be decisive.” 53. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Sheo Darshan v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (1972) 3 SCC 74 wherein it was held in para 7: “7. Where there is positive direct evidence about the time of occurrence it is wrong to make conjectures about the time of occurrence by the presence of faecal matter in the intestines and come to the conclusion that the deceased would normally have evacuated early in the morning. The presence of faecal matter in the intestines is not conclusive. It may be that the deceased was suffering from constipation.” 54. In the present case, PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Kandhai, has opined that the death could have occurred between the night of 28.10.2004 and the afternoon of 29.10.2004. The medical opinion regarding the probable time of death is thus broadly consistent with the prosecution version that the deceased was taken away by the accused at about 9:00 P.M. on the night of the occurrence and his dead body was discovered on the following morning in the Ambara jungle. 55. It is also pertinent to note that the medical opinion regarding time of death is always approximate and not exact. Various physiological factors such as digestion, metabolism, physical condition of the deceased and the nature of food consumed may affect the rate of digestion. 55. It is also pertinent to note that the medical opinion regarding time of death is always approximate and not exact. Various physiological factors such as digestion, metabolism, physical condition of the deceased and the nature of food consumed may affect the rate of digestion. Therefore, the mere presence of partially digested food in the stomach cannot be treated as a conclusive indicator of the exact time of death. 56. In the present case, the medical evidence is not only consistent with the prosecution case but also lends support to the prosecution version regarding the time frame of the occurrence. The post-mortem findings regarding the nature of injuries, the cause of death and the estimated time of death are in consonance with the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution. 57. Thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant seeking to create doubt regarding the time of death solely on the basis of stomach contents does not inspire confidence. When the medical evidence is read together with the other circumstances proved by the prosecution, it clearly supports the prosecution version and does not create any reasonable doubt regarding the time of occurrence. Forensic Analysis and Evidentiary Value 58. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the forensic examination report (Ext. Ka-18). As per the said report, the shirt, vest (banyan), gamcha and the axe recovered during the course of investigation were subjected to forensic examination and human blood was detected on these articles. Although the report does not conclusively establish that the blood detected on the aforesaid articles belonged to the deceased Kandhai, the presence of human blood on the weapon of assault and other articles recovered during investigation constitutes a relevant circumstance, which lends corroboration to the prosecution case. 59. It is also to be kept in mind that the occurrence in the present case pertains to the year 2004, when the techniques of forensic examination available to the investigating agencies were comparatively limited and advanced DNA profiling or precise blood grouping was not always carried out in every case. In such circumstances, the Court cannot discard the forensic report merely because it does not specifically establish the blood group of the deceased. The evidentiary value of such report has to be appreciated along with the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. In such circumstances, the Court cannot discard the forensic report merely because it does not specifically establish the blood group of the deceased. The evidentiary value of such report has to be appreciated along with the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. 60.In the present case, when the forensic report indicating presence of human blood on the axe and other articles is considered together with the evidence relating to motive, the last seen circumstance and the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused, it provides further corroboration to the prosecution case and strengthens the chain of circumstances established against the accused Conclusion: 61. In light of the foregoing discussion and upon a holistic appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused- appellant. The circumstances relating to motive, the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the accused shortly before the occurrence, the conduct of the accused, the recovery of the weapon of offence at his instance, and the medical evidence corroborating the nature and time of death collectively form a coherent chain which is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The accused has failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased, thereby attracting the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act and providing an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, which calls for no interference in this appeal. 62. Consequently, the present jail appeal is dismissed . The judgment and order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC, is hereby affirmed. 63. It is further directed that out of the total fine amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation, as directed by the learned Trial Court. 64. The appellant is in jail and shall continue to serve out the remaining part of his sentence in accordance with law. 65. 63. It is further directed that out of the total fine amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation, as directed by the learned Trial Court. 64. The appellant is in jail and shall continue to serve out the remaining part of his sentence in accordance with law. 65. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the trial court record be transmitted forthwith to the court concerned for necessary compliance and the copy of this judgment shall also be communicated to the Jail Superintendent, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate.