the nature of the death primarily on the basis of circumstances such as disappearance of the deceased and the subsequent events relating to the transfer of the vehicle. Such an inference, in our considered view, is not supported by a complete chain of circumstances, so as to conclusively establish the factum of death beyond reasonable doubt. 46. It is also material to note that the specimen signatures of PW-7 and the appellant were sent to FSL for comparison with the signatures on the transfer documents, that is, Ex. PW-5/F and Ex. PW-5/G. The FSL Report, Ex. PW-19/A, confirms that the transfer documents bear the signatures of the appellant, while the specimen signatures of PW-7 did not match with the questioned signatures at points marked Q-2, Q- 6, Q-9 and Q-13 on the said transfer documents. In her examinationin-chief, PW-7 deposed that Ex. PW-5/F and Ex. PW-5/G bear her signatures at points Q-2, Q-6, Q-9 and Q-13. She was then crossexamined by the learned APP, and in such cross-examination, she took a ‘U turn’ by stating that she has not signed at points Q-2, Q-6, Q-9 and Q-13 on the said documentsEx. PW-5/F and Ex. PW-5/G. Thus, a doubt has been created as to whether the transfer documentsEx. PW-5/F and Ex. PW-5/G, on the basis of which the car has been transferred in the name of the appellant, are in fact the genuine or forged signatures of PW-7. However, there is no evidence to prove that it was appellant who forged the signatures of PW-7 on transfer documents or that he himself submitted the said documents for transfer of registration of the car in his name.
