JUDGMENT SARKARIA, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, by which the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge in respect of the murders of Jarnail Singh, Swaran Singh, Smt. Dipo and Guddi, was confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under :- 3. On May 2, 1974, Jarnail Singh and Shyamdas were staying in the Gurdwara of village Karadwala. Karam Singh, the Granthi of Gurdwara, had gone away to Sadul Sahar. There, in the morning of May 3, 1971, he received information that somebody had murdered Jarnail Sigh and Shyamdas within the premises of the Gurdwara. Karam Singh lost no time in reaching the scene of occurrence, in a jeep. He found the dead body of Jarnail Singh drenched in blood on the roof. Nearby, on a charpai, Shyamdas lay unconscious with head injury. The locks of the room and of the almirah were lying broken. Karam Singh, also, came to know from the persons gathered there, that in the neighbouring house also, Swaran Singh and his wife, Smt. Dipo, had been murdered, and their daughter, Guddi was lying unconscious. Guddi had also suffered head injuries. The household articles were lying scattered and a blood-stained Ghota (a heavy wooden pestle) was lying in the court-yard of the house of Swaran Singh deceased. 4. Karam Singh, then, went to the Police Station, Sadul Sahar, and lodged a First Information Report on the basis of the preceding facts. In the report, he also mentioned the presence of footprints of the suspected culprit at the scene of occurrence. 5. After registering a case, Shri Bhanwar Lal, Station House Officer (P. W. 18) reached the spot and prepared the siteplan (Ex. P-16) and the connected inspection memo (Ex. P-16-A), in which he noted all the relevant physical facts noticed by him at the site. The Police Officer, also held inquest regarding the deaths and prepared the inquest reports. He found on Thali (Art. 4) and two tumblers (Arts. 2 and 3) lying there. He examined them. There appeared to be finger-prints on these articles. He, therefore, seized them and prepared a memo (Ex. P.-31). He also found there one pair of wooden Khaddao (Arts. 7 and 8). He seized them. He found on Thali (Art. 4) and two tumblers (Arts. 2 and 3) lying there. He examined them. There appeared to be finger-prints on these articles. He, therefore, seized them and prepared a memo (Ex. P.-31). He also found there one pair of wooden Khaddao (Arts. 7 and 8). He seized them. He also noticed one footprint in the house of Swaran Singh and two more outside that house. He prepared the moulds of these foot-prints. He also prepared a mould of the foot-print which he noticed in the Gurdwara. He also took into possession the bloodstained Ghota and sealed it into a parcel. 6. Despite investigation, no clue of the murder was found till another incident took place in Ganganagar District, after some time. The modus operandi for committing the theft adopted by the miscreant was similar. 7. Since several crimes of the same pattern had been committed in various places in District Ganganagar, the investigations were conducted by several police officers under the co-ordinated supervisions of Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore, Superintendent of Police. Bhanwar Lal, Station House Officer, Sadar Ganganagar was also one of those investigators. According to the statement of Shri Rathore, about 60 murders in 29 cases of the same pattern in the neighbouring areas in the States of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab were under investigation. 8. On May 25, 1974, Shri Rathore got some clue, on account of which his suspicion fell on Shankaria. His suspicion was confirmed on May 31, 1974. He, therefore, accompanied by Subhash, went to Bhatinda and there arrested Shankaria on June 3, 1974 at about 2.30 p.m He searched Shankarias person and prepared the memo (Ex. P-50) of the articles recovered from his person. One of the articles thus recovered was a rikshaw pulling licence issued by the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, in the name of Rattan Lal son of Jetha Ram. After making the appellant to cover his face, he took him to Ganganagar, where he remained in the police custody till 12-6-1974. On that day, the appellant was taken to Raisinghnagar and produced before the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Magistrate remanded Shankaria to the Judicial Lock-up for two days. 9. On June 13, 1974, Shri Srivastava, Superintendent of Police (C. I. D.) who had taken charge of the investigation, made a written request to the Magistrate for recording the confession of the accused. The Magistrate remanded Shankaria to the Judicial Lock-up for two days. 9. On June 13, 1974, Shri Srivastava, Superintendent of Police (C. I. D.) who had taken charge of the investigation, made a written request to the Magistrate for recording the confession of the accused. The Magistrate passed an order that the confession would be recorded on the following day and directed that Shankaria be brought from the Judicial Lock-up on 14-6-1974 and produced before him at 7 a. m. 10. On June 14, 1974, Shankaria was accordingly produced from the Judicial Lock-up in the morning and produced in the Court before the Judicial Magistrate, Shri Bansal. After detailed preliminary questioning and warning, the Magistrate gave about 15 minutes more for reflection to the accused. When, as a result of these preliminary proceedings, he was satisfied that the confession was being voluntarily made, he started recording the confessional statement of Shankaria accused at about 8.45 a. m. That confessional statement pertained to another double murder case of Police Station Sadul Sahar, which was the subject of the Special Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 1076 before us, which has been disposed of by a separate judgment. After recording the confession in the said case, the Magistrate recorded the confession (Ex. P-39) of Shankaria, pertaining to the four murders in question in the instant case. 11. Rendered into English, the confession (Ex. P-39) reads as under : "About a month and 8 or 9 days back at 3.30 a.m. I boarded the train at Bhatinda. I had the ticket for Sadulshaher. I reached Sadulsahar Matili at 7 p.m. in the everning. I then proceeded alongside the railway track and reached Kardwala. I put off my chappal at the side of the Gurdwara and then went near a pool and there I put off my clothes and entered the Gurdwara. There was a kitchen near the pool from where I picked up a Ghota and then went to the Kotha on which men were sleeping. I climbed to the roof of the Kotha from the place near the machine. I gave a Sota blow to the person who was sleeping. A body also was sleeping nearby. I hit him also with the Ghota on the head. I then got down. There was a water pitcher. I took water and drank it. I found one Sandasi there. I gave a Sota blow to the person who was sleeping. A body also was sleeping nearby. I hit him also with the Ghota on the head. I then got down. There was a water pitcher. I took water and drank it. I found one Sandasi there. With the help of the Sandasi, I broke open the lock and searched the entire house, but found no money. From a shirt I got Rs. 2/- only. After this incident I went around with that Ghota to the nearby house. I tried to climb the wall but could not do so. I then effected my entry through the main door of the house. I found a man sleeping on a charpoy inside the house. I hit him with the Ghota. Just at a little distance from that place, two women were sleeping on a cot. I gave Ghota blows to them also. One of them fell down from the charpoy and then I again gave a Ghota blow to her. There was a pitcher of water. I took my bath and then came back to the place from where I had gone there. I remained at that place up to 3 A. M., from where I had gone to the village and then on the road. Along with the railway line I went to the Railway Station Budhsinghwala and reached the station at 7 in the morning. The train was not available. Therefore, I came to Hanumangarh by a bus. From Hanumangarh, I got the train and reached Bhatinda and started plying rikshaw in Bhatinda." At the foot of the record of the confession, the Magistrate appended the requisite certificate enjoined by S. 164, Criminal P. C. 12. The conviction of the appellant mainly rests on his confessional statement (Ex. P-39). 13. Mr. Gambhir, appearing as amicus curiae, contends that the confession (Ex. P-39) appears to have been made under police pressure and inducement, and was not voluntary. Emphasis in this connection has been placed on the fact that the Magistrate did not, after the preliminary questioning, give sufficient time to the accused for reflection. It is submitted that since the appellant was in police custody for about 9 days and it was incumbent on the Magistrate to give the appellant at least 24 hours time in jail custody, free from police influence, to decide whether or not to make a confession. It is submitted that since the appellant was in police custody for about 9 days and it was incumbent on the Magistrate to give the appellant at least 24 hours time in jail custody, free from police influence, to decide whether or not to make a confession. Since such a precaution was not taken - proceeds the argument - the confession should be presumed to be stamped with the vitiating influence and pressure of the police. Reliance has been placed on this Courts decision in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1957 SCR 953 : 14. The contention appears to be attractive but does not stand a close examination. It may be noted that during his examination at the trial. Shankaria had denied even the factum of making any confessional statement whatever to the Magistrate. He did not then complain of any police beating, torture or pressure, although he was then defended by an experienced counsel at State expense. In the High Court, also, a senior counsel, Shri K. C. Jain appeared as amicus curiae to defend the appellant. This contention was raised in the High Court also and was rightly repelled. 15. It may be further noted that the appellant was got admitted to the Judicial Lock-up at Raisinghnagar in the evening of 12-6-1974, presumably with the object of getting his confessional statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently on June 13, 1974, Shri Kashi Prasad Srivastava, Superintendent of Police, made a formal request in writing to Shri Bansal, Judicial Magistrate, to record the confession. Shri Bansal did not immediately record the confession of the appellant but directed that the confession would be recorded on the following morning at 7 a. m. when the accused would be brought from the Judicial Lock-up. The Magistrate then put pointed and searching questions to the appellant to ensure that the confession was being made voluntarily. He specifically asked the accused about the date of his arrest and the period of detention in police custody. He then asked him how the police had treated him during the police custody. The accused replied in categorical terms that he had not been beaten or mal-treated or threatened by the police. Question No. 6 put to the accused was as under : "Whether you were told if you made the confession you would be released or pardoned or that you would get any other benefit? The accused replied in categorical terms that he had not been beaten or mal-treated or threatened by the police. Question No. 6 put to the accused was as under : "Whether you were told if you made the confession you would be released or pardoned or that you would get any other benefit? The accused replied : "I was not told that if I made the confession I would be released or pardoned or that I would get any other benefit." In Question No. 7, the Magistrate explained to the accused that in no case, whether or not he made a confession, his custody would be handed over to the police. To this, the accused replied : "I am making confession out of my free will. I have understood." The Magistrate further explained in clear, unmistakable terms to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession, and if he did so, the confession may be used as evidence against him. After giving the accused 15 or 20 minutes more for reflection, the Magistrate recorded two confessions of the accused, at first the one relating to the other case, and thereafter the confession, Ex-P-39, pertaining to the instant case. 16. The essence of the rule enunciated by this Court in Sarwan Singhs case ( AIR 1957 SC 637 ) (ibid) is, that when an accused person is produced before a Magistrate, after prolonged police custody, the Magistrate should before recording the confession under S. 164, Criminal P. C. ensure that the mind of the accused person was completely free from any possible influence of the police. In that conmtext, it was observed that the effective way of securing such freedom to the accused person is to send him to jail custody and give him adequate time to consider whether he should make a confession at all. It was suggested that ordinarily, for this purpose, the accused person should be sent to the judicial custody for at least 24 hours, preceding the confession. The Court was careful enough to preface this suggestion with the remark that it was difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule in this connection. 17. In the instant case, the accused had about two days in the Judicial Lock-up, to ponder over this question of making or not making a confession. The Court was careful enough to preface this suggestion with the remark that it was difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule in this connection. 17. In the instant case, the accused had about two days in the Judicial Lock-up, to ponder over this question of making or not making a confession. He was admitted to the Judicial Lock-up in the evening of 12th June 1974 and thereafter remained in judicial custody, free from police influence, till his confession was recorded in the forenoon of June 14, 1974. 18. The facts of Sarwan Singhs case were materially different. There, the accused was brought straightway from prolonged police custody to the Magistrate, who immediately thereafter recorded his confession in the court-room, while the Police Sub-Inspector was loitering outside in the Verandah. There were visible marks of injuries on the person of the accused. In spite of this the Magistrate did not ask the accused as to how he had received those injuries. In the instant case, the period of about two days in judicial custody preceding the confession, was more than sufficient to shed fear or influence of the Police, if any. 19. Another circumstance which militates to some extent against the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellant, is that the confession was not retracted at the earliest. It was made on 14-6-1974. The trial commenced on 10-1-1975 when the charges were framed and read over to the accused. This was the earliest opportunity at which he could retract the confession, particularly when he was defended by an experienced counsel. But he did not do so on this occasion, though he pleaded not guilty to the charges. 20. The accused was examined under S. 313, Cr. P. C. on 14-6-1975. It was on this day, during his examination, he, for the first time, retracted the confession. He denied even the factum of making this confessional statement (Exhibit P-39) when the same was read over to him. In this connection, he stated : " I was not in senses at that time. I was severely beaten by the police and was forced to appear before the Magistrate. Thereafter, what had happened, I did not know because I had become unconscious. I was intoxicated with wine in the Rest House Raisinghnagar before I was produced before the Magistrate. I was produced before the Magistrate in the state of intoxication." 21. I was severely beaten by the police and was forced to appear before the Magistrate. Thereafter, what had happened, I did not know because I had become unconscious. I was intoxicated with wine in the Rest House Raisinghnagar before I was produced before the Magistrate. I was produced before the Magistrate in the state of intoxication." 21. This belated plea of beating by the Police was not credible. No question was put to the investigating officers, S/Shri Kashi Prasad Srivastava (P. W. 16) and Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 18), in cross-examination, to show that they had beaten, threatened or otherwise induced the accused to make the confession. 22. Equally unfounded is the plea that wine was administered to him (by the Police) in the Rest House before producing him before the Magistrate for recording the confession. Firstly, the accused was in the judicial lock-up for the preceding two days, from where he was brought under the orders of the Magistrate and produced at 7.15 A. M. Secondly, if the accused was then dead-drunk, this fact could not have escaped the notice of the Judicial Magistrate. 23. The Magistrate, Shri Bansal was examined as P. W. 7. One of the questions put to him in cross-examination by the defence was : "Did you enquire from the accused as to how the police had meted out good treatment to him?" Shri Bansal replied : "The accused did not tell me that the police had given him wine, meat and thus treated him well. He stated that good treatment was meted out to him." 24. The story propounded by the accused that at the time when he was produced before the Magistrate for recording his confession, he was so dead-drunk that he did not know what he was doing, was too fantastic to be believed. If the accused was then reeking of alcohol and unfit to make a statement - as he now wants to have it believed - the Magistrate would not have failed to note this fact. It is impossible to believe that the confessional statement was not made by the accused but was cooked up by the Judicial Magistrate himself. 25. Mr. If the accused was then reeking of alcohol and unfit to make a statement - as he now wants to have it believed - the Magistrate would not have failed to note this fact. It is impossible to believe that the confessional statement was not made by the accused but was cooked up by the Judicial Magistrate himself. 25. Mr. S. K. Bansal was further questioned : "Did you believe that the police had assured the accused that in case he made the confession, he would be pardoned and that he would not be challaned in this Court?" Shri Bansal refuted this suggestion, stating : "I had put questions in this regard to the accused to which he replied that the police had not assured him that if he made the confession, he would not be challaned or pardoned. I was convinced from his replies that he was making the statement voluntarily and ... ... ... not under any pressure of inducement." 26. In the light of what has been said above, we have not hesitation in holding, in agreement with the Courts below, that the confession (Ex. P-39) was voluntarily made by the appellant. 27. The next question to be considered was, whether this confession is true. For this purpose, the Courts below compared it with the rest of the evidence and found that it receives sufficient assurance and support from the other evidence. 28. The main contention of Mr. Gambhir, on this point, is that the confession (Ex. P-39), instead of being corroborated, stood contradicted by the medical evidence. Our attention was invited to the statement of Dr. Jaswant Singh who had performed the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Swaran Singh and Jarnail Singh. 29. In his confessional statement (Ex. P-39) Shankaria, appellant, has stated that he picked up a Ghota from the kitchen of the Gurdwara and thereafter caused head-injuries to all the five sleeping victims with that Ghota. 30. Dr. Jaswant Singh noted three incised wounds on Swaran Singh deceased and two incised wounds on Jarnail Singh deceased. All these injuries were located on the head. He found that the skull bones under these injuries had been fractured and cut. In the trial court, the Doctor had stated that in his opinion the injuries on these deceased persons were caused with a sharp weapon and not with the Ghota (Ex. P-1). All these injuries were located on the head. He found that the skull bones under these injuries had been fractured and cut. In the trial court, the Doctor had stated that in his opinion the injuries on these deceased persons were caused with a sharp weapon and not with the Ghota (Ex. P-1). He further opined that the injuries on Swaran Singh were the result of three separate blows and those on Jarnail Singh of three successive blows. 31. Dr. Jaswant Singh had performed the autopsy of Smt. Dipo w/o Swaran Singh, also. On dissection, he found that there was fracture of right orbital margin with maxillary sinus. Zygomatic bone involved the fracture of both the nasal bones. Underneath, there was clotted blood. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, and could be caused with the Ghote (Art. 1). 32. Dr. Ram Lal Goyal (P. W. 1) had examined the injuries of Shyamlal, victim. This Doctor found on Shyamlal, a lacerated wound on the parietal region of the head and one bruise on the frontoparietal region. In his opinion, these injuries could be caused with the Ghota (Art. 1). Dr. Goyal had also conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Guddi, aged 14 years. He found one bruise on the fronto-parietal region of the head and one abrasion on the right lateral malleolus on the posterior of upper third of left forearm on her body. These injuries, in his opinion, were caused with some blunt weapon. 33. Dr. Jaswant Singh was recalled and further examined in the High Court as C. W. 1. In variance with his earlier deposition, Dr. Jaswant Singh stated before the High Court that all the injuries found on the dead-body of Swaran Singh could be caused with the Ghota (Art. 1). He clarified that his previous opinion on this point rendered at the trial, could be wrong because he had examined the injuries on the bodies of Swaran Singh and Jarnail Singh with a naked eye, as no magnifying glass was available to him. Dr. Jaswant Singh explained that to a naked eye, a lacerated would on the head may look like an incised wound; that only after examination under a magnifying lense, it could definitely be said whether a particular head wound was a lacerated wound or an incised wound. Dr. Jaswant Singh explained that to a naked eye, a lacerated would on the head may look like an incised wound; that only after examination under a magnifying lense, it could definitely be said whether a particular head wound was a lacerated wound or an incised wound. He clarified that the Ghota (Art. 1) might have been used as a stick for inflicting the injuries found on the bodies of Smt. Dipo, Swaran Singh and Jarnail Singh. 34. Dr. Prakash Dayal was another expert examined in the High Court as C. W. 2. He was the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Jodhpur. On the basis of the data available from the post mortem examination reports, this expert also opined that the injuries on the deceased persons could be caused with the Ghota (Art. 1). The witness gave convincing reasons in support of his opinion. 35. Dr. Ram Lal Goyal was also, further examined as C. W. 3 in the High Court. He categorically stated that injuries 1 and 2 found on the body of Guddi could be caused with the Ghota (Art. 1). He explained that the same opinion was expressed by him before the Sessions Judge, also, but it appears that due to some typographical error, the word not had been incorporated in his statement. 36. In defence, the appellant examined Dr. S. M. Dugar, a retired Medical Officer. He was asked to opine after examining the post mortem reports (Ex. P-5 and P-6) relating to Swaran Singh and Jarnail Singh deceased, whether the incised wounds noted therein could be caused by a blunt weapon. While opining that true incised wounds are never caused with a hard blunt object like that Danda (Art. 1), Dr. Dungar commented on the post mortem report (Ex. P-5) as under : "I find that the report (Ex. P-5) is not complete. The Medical Officer should have given the description of the tissues layer by layer while dissecting the body. He has also not given the exact nature of the margins of the wounds, nor whether they were inverted or everted." Regarding Injury No. 3 in Ex. P-5, Dr. Dugar stated, if the injury was 1" deep as noted therein, the underneath bone should have been cut sharply, but this was not so mentioned in the post mortem report. Dr. He has also not given the exact nature of the margins of the wounds, nor whether they were inverted or everted." Regarding Injury No. 3 in Ex. P-5, Dr. Dugar stated, if the injury was 1" deep as noted therein, the underneath bone should have been cut sharply, but this was not so mentioned in the post mortem report. Dr. Dungar was therefore, unable to opine on the basis of this incomplete data, whether the injury to the brain tissue was due to a sharp cutting weapon or piercing of bone pieces. 37. In regard to the post mortem report (Ex. P-) relating to Jarnail Singh deceased, Dr. Dugar stated that a blow given with a sharp cutting object, does not usually cause fracture of the bone into small pieces, as was found in this case. The data being incomplete, the witness was unable to opine whether or not the injury was caused with a sharpedged weapon. 38. After a careful examination of the statements of the Doctors, the learned Judges of the High Court came to the conclusion that the injuries found on Swaran Singh and Jarnail Singh could be caused with the Ghota (Art. 1). The injuries on the victims were located on the head. The scalp over the head is taut. Even an injury caused with a blunt weapon on the head, ordinarily produces a gaping wound, the edges of which if not carefully examined under a magnifying lense, can be mistaken for those of an incised wound. This was the mistake committed by Dr. Jaswant Singh and he had courage enough to admit and correct it in further examination before the High Court. Thus considered, there was no contradiction between the confessional statement and the medical testimony in regard to the nature of the inflicting weapon. Rather, the medical evidence taken as a whole, including the statement of Dr. Jaswant Singh before the High Court, lends valuable support to the confession (Exhibit P-39) inasmuch as it is stated therein that the injuries to the victims were caused with the Ghota (Art. 1). 39. This Ghota (Art. 1) was found lying at the scene of occurrence in the house of Swaran Singh deceased and was seized by the investigating officer soon after reaching the spot. 39. This Ghota (Art. 1) was found lying at the scene of occurrence in the house of Swaran Singh deceased and was seized by the investigating officer soon after reaching the spot. Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 18) has mentioned the presence of this blood-stained Ghota at point No. 3 shown in the site plan (Ex. P-16) read with the explanatory memo (Ex. P-16A). The Serologist of India at Calcutta, to whom this Ghota was sent for examination found human blood on it (vide Exhibit P-67, Item 12 danda). 40. With regard to the number of blows given to each of the victims, Shankaria was not categoric in his confessional statement (Ex. P-39). It was only with regard to the woman who fell down from the Charpai, that he was specific in saying that he gave her one more blow. The confessional statement, read as a whole, does not exclude the possibility of the accused having given more than one blow to each of the victims. The sub-stratum of the confession is that the accused hit all the sleeping victims on the head with the Ghota. The discrepancy with regard to the number of blows, expounded by the counsel, between the confessional statement and the medical evidence, was thus wholly illusory. 41. Another circumstance which was taken into account by the trial court in corroboration of the confessional statement was that one Railway Ticket No. 16212 had been purchased by a passenger on 2-5-1974 from Bhatinda for Sadul Sahar. This fact was borne out by the testimony of Karam Chand Sud (P. W. 9), the Chief Booking Clerk of the Railway Station, Bhatinda. This circumstance lent cogent assurance to the confession inasmuch as therein Shankaria stated that he had at 3 A. M. purchased a ticket at Bhatinda for going to Sadul Sahar, and on the ticket he travelled by train to Sadul Sahar Matili reaching there at 7 P. M. in the evening. From Sadul Sahar, he proceeded on foot along the Railway track and reached Karadwala, where he committed these murders. 42. Another important piece of circumstantial evidence which was rightly taken into consideration by the High Court, was that on May 3, 1974 in the morning, Bhanwar Lal, S. H. O. on examining the scene of occurrence, found, among other things, one Thali (Art. 4), two tumblers (Arts. 2 and 3) in the Kotha of the Gurdwara. 42. Another important piece of circumstantial evidence which was rightly taken into consideration by the High Court, was that on May 3, 1974 in the morning, Bhanwar Lal, S. H. O. on examining the scene of occurrence, found, among other things, one Thali (Art. 4), two tumblers (Arts. 2 and 3) in the Kotha of the Gurdwara. He noticed fingerprints on this Thali and the tumblers. He, therefore, seized these utensils (Articles 2, 3 and 4) and prepared the memo (Ex. P-31) in the presence of witnesses, Gurnarain Singh (P. W. 13) and Karam Singh (P. W. 4). Regarding the seizure and sealing of these Arts. 2, 3 and 4, the evidence of Bhanwar Lal was fully corroborated by P. W. 4 and P. W. 13 who are the attesting witnesses of the Memo (Ex. P-31). Bhanwar Singh on 7-6-1975 made an application to the Magistrate for obtaining the specimen finger-prints of Shankaria accused. The Magistrate rejected that application without assigning any reason. Bhanwar Singh thereupon took the specimen finger-prints of Shankaria. 43. On 27-6-1974, Panna Lal, Constable, took out 15 sealed packets including those containing the utensils (Arts. 2, 3 and 4) and 6 foot moulds from the Malkhana and handed over the same to Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 18) who himself carried those packets together with the specimen finger-prints of the accused to the Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur, and delivered the same to the Finger Print Expert, Mr. P. M. Tankha on 29-6-1974 under cover of letters from Shri K. P. Srivastava, Superintendent of Police. In the Finger Print Bureau, Shri P. N. Tankha (P. W. 15) took enlarged photographs of the finger-prints found on Articles 2, 3 and 4 and compared the same with the photographs of the specimen finger-prints of the accused. The Expert has opined that two of the finger-prints marked C and D in the photographs were identical with the left thumb impression of Shankaria. 44. It was contended before the High Court - and the argument has been reiterated before us - that the prosecution had failed to prove the specimen finger-prints of the accused because Bhanwar Singh, who had taken the specimen finger-prints of the accused, was not examined as a witness at the trial. The High Court rejected this contention - and we think rightly - for two reasons. The High Court rejected this contention - and we think rightly - for two reasons. First, that an affidavit of Bhanwar Singh was filed at the trial before the Sessions Judge. His evidence rendered on affidavit being of a formal character, was admissible under Section 296 Cr. P. C. Bhanwar Singh was also tendered for cross-examination, but the Sessions Judge did not allow him to be cross-examined. Second, that during his examination at the trial, the accused himself had admitted that his finger-impressions had been obtained by the police. 45. We endorse this reasoning of the High Court. In answer to the last question at the trial, Shankaria had stated : "My finger prints on the utensils Thali and glasses said to have been recovered from the Gurdwara, were obtained forcibly at the Rest House Ganganagar during the investigation and after the occurrence. This is all forged. I have committed no murder. I am innocent.........." 46. Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 18) testified that he had seen some finger-prints on the Thali and the tumblers which were lying at the scene of occurrence. He, therefore, took them into the custody and sealed them. Subsequently, on his return to the Police Station, he deposited these sealed packets in the Malkhana of the Police Station, and seals on that parcel remained in tact till the witness himself carried and delivered them in the Finger-Print Bureau, Jaipur. Mr. K. P. Srivastava also testified that the seals on the parcels were in tact when they were sent to the Finger-Print Expert. The Expert, P. N. Tankha (P. W. 15) had confirmed this version of P. W. 16 and P. W. 18 and testified that the seals on these packets were intact when he received them on 29-6-74. 47. It may be mentioned that in cross-examination, the defence counsel had put it to P. Ws. 4, 13, 16 and 18 that the memos originally prepared by Bhanwar Lal (with regard to finger-prints on articles 2, 3 and 4) were destroyed and in their place "new false memos" were prepared and the finger-prints of the accused on these utensils were fabricated after the arrest of the accused, on the advice of Shri Srivastava. All these witnesses emphatically denied this allegation. 48. The Courts below have believed the evidence of these witnesses and have rejected the defence plea alleging fabrication of the finger-prints. All these witnesses emphatically denied this allegation. 48. The Courts below have believed the evidence of these witnesses and have rejected the defence plea alleging fabrication of the finger-prints. We find no good reason to differ from the Courts below, that the finger-prints on these utensils were not fabricated but were genuine. 49. The finger-print of the appellant found on these utensils particularly on the tumblers, probabilises the version of the accused to the effect that he had taken water after assaulting the victims. Thus, this piece of circumstantial evidence also connects the appellant with the crimes in question. 50. Then, there was the evidence of foot-moulds. Bhanwar Lal found naked foot-marks on or about the scene of occurrence. He prepared moulds thereof. These moulds were subsequently sent to the Finger-Print Bureau. Specimen bare foot-prints of the appellant were also prepared. The Expert, P. N. Tankha opined that one of the foot-moulds, in question, tallied with the specimen left foot-mould of the accused shankaria. Thus, the track evidence, whatever its worth, lent further assurance to the confessional statement (Ex. P. 39). 51. We have gone through all the evidence on the record, with the aid of the counsel. Excepting the medical evidence which has already been discussed, nothing has been pointed out which contradicts the story adumbrated in the confessional statement of the appellant. 52. For all the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant was rightly convicted for the murders of Jarnail Singh, Swaran Singh, Smt. Dipo and Smt. Guddi and the attempted murder of Shyamdas. As regards the sentence, the crimes were committed in a ghastly manner. The modus operandi of the appellant, was fiendish in the extreme. The victims were mercilessly done to death while asleep. The motive was to commit theft of cash and valuables. For all these multiple killings, he found Rs. 2/- only. The appellant was therefore, rightly awarded the death sentence for this quadruple murder. 53. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and the death sentence of the appellant are maintained. Appeal dismissed. For Citation : AIR 1978 SC 1399